O.F.I. Occasional Papers
No. 53
Forest Certification
and
Genetically Engineered Trees:
Will the two ever be compatible?
Peter Coventry
2001
Based on dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements of the MSc course
“Forestry and its Relation to Land Use”
1999-2000
ISBN: 0-85074-155-6
ISSN: 0269-5790
Oxford Forestry Institute
Department of Plant Sciences
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3RB
Tel: +44 (0) 1865 275000
Fax: +44 (0) 1865 275074
URL: http://www.plants.ox.ac.uk/ofi
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
Forest Certification and Genetically Engineered Trees:
Will the two ever be compatible?
Contents
1.
Abstract
2
2.
Introduction
i.
Intent
ii.
The rise of certification
iii.
The development of genetic modification
iv.
GM through certifications eyes
v.
What is a GMO?
3
3
6
7
8
The specific concerns of certification bodies
i.
Reduced diversity
ii.
Asexual transfer of genes
iii.
Herbicide resistance genes
iv.
Insect resistant GMOs
v.
Lignin modification
vi.
Transgene escape
vii.
Restricted access to advantages
viii. Reduced biodiversity from sterile trees
ix
General concerns
10
12
12
14
17
19
23
24
26
Evaluating the risks
i.
Predictability and instability
ii.
Risk assessment
26
27
5.
Conclusions
30
6.
Table of acronyms
32
7.
Acknowledgements
32
8.
References
33
3.
4.
1
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
1. Abstract
Forest certification has expanded rapidly over the past five years. It was developed to
make use of the trade in forest products to promote and stimulate sustainable forest
management, and recognised that certification would have to offer commercial
advantages to be taken up by trading enterprises. Paralleling this expansion, the
application of genetic modifications has been heralded as a great tool in progress
towards improved ecological management, alleviating poverty in developing countries
(Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1999) and offering financial benefits to industry.
However, one of the most prominent certification bodies, the Forest Stewardship
Council, has barred the use of genetic modification (GM) in the forests that it
certifies.
GM has caused concern amongst many environmental organisations, which fear
irresponsible applications of such a powerful technology and the ‘unnatural’ alteration
of an organism’s genetic code (Greenpeace 2000; Soil Association 2000; Owusu
1999). Yet the potential benefits to humanity are enormous, and many scientists
cannot understand the desire for an outright ban on useful modifications (Strauss
2000a). Herein lies what many perceive as the fundamental crux of the debate; in
evaluating the risks of genetic modification we must unravel a complex set of
scientific, practical, ethical, philosophical and anthropogenic interactions using
weighted judgement. This weighted judgement is a personal issue drawing on an
individuals beliefs. Deciding upon a procedure that accommodates all stakeholders
opinion is very difficult. Moreover, since each application of GM is different, a
polarised acceptance or rejection is impossible. The issue is not black or white; each
transgenic trait is a shade of grey.
The issues discussed in this paper illustrate that GM has potential benefits and risks,
and that these are not restricted to GM per se, but are applicable to ‘conventional’
breeding technologies and existing forestry practices, many of which are readily
certified. Ideally each gene modification should be examined in isolation and against
equivalent certification procedures. This would necessitate a more explicit risk /
benefit assessment, rather than a politicised, unconditional ban on a potentially
beneficial technology. However, the lack of precise information surrounding the risks
of GM will make this difficult, because it leads to subjective judgements based on
personal beliefs. More field testing of genetically modified trees will aid in making
decisions surrounding their use.
GM is still in its infancy and there are legitimate concerns. Yet it would be very shortsighted to automatically exclude GM from certification programmes and loose the
concomitant benefits of this technology. In the next 5 to 10 years plantations of
transgenic trees will start appearing, most probably in developing countries with
liberal forest legislation. Certification bodies have the potential to ensure these
plantations conform to high standards. Certifiers, particularly the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) with its eco-credibility and global perspective, can play a pivotal role
in imposing realistic criteria for GM tree certification.
2
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
However, the politics surrounding FSC certification are not welcoming to GM. For
the foreseeable future, companies pursuing GM are likely to only undertake ISO and
regional certification, and monitor the position of the FSC. Certification has the
potential to endorse the rational appraisal of genetic modification and its concomitant
benefits to the environment. Banning GM may defer the ecological benefits trangenics
have to offer, or worse, marginalise GM plantations to regions where legislation and
monitoring enable irresponsible use of GM trees.
2. Introduction
2.i. Intent
This paper will address the question of whether there will ever be the certification of
forests that contain genetically modified (GM) trees. This chapter, chapter two,
reviews the origin and range of both certification systems and genetic modification
(GM) applications, and defines a genetically modified organism (GMO). The third
chapter will focuses on the aspects of GM that certification schemes, and the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) in particular, find problematical. It doing so it will
consider how the different certification schemes have addressed comparable issues to
those raised surrounding GM trees. This includes the conservation of genetic
resources, use of exotic species and application of chemicals. Chapter four briefly
reviews the inherently different perceptions of GM by the various stakeholders, and
the role this plays in risk evaluation. Lastly, chapter five concludes with consideration
of the politics and business surrounding GM and certification, and reflects upon their
greater role in determining whether forest certification and genetically engineered
trees will ever be compatible.
2.ii. The rise of certification
International responses to deforestation have been vociferously criticised by many
NGOs1. These reproaches centre on the perception that there has been a slow
implementation of inadequate forest conservation agreements. Furthermore, these
agreements themselves do not commit participants to agreement implementation.
These deficiencies have been recognised for some time; an FAO report on TFAP
noted an “inadequate regard for local peoples, ecological matters and the underlying
causes of deforestation” and recommended “avoid bureaucratic suffocation and
encourage effective leadership” (Ullsten et al. 1990). The ITTO has been consistently
criticised as unrepresentative with ineffective environmental concern and poor
management, ignoring their prescribed objectives, such as Target 2000 (Colchester
1990; FoE 1992). Moreover, the impasse between ‘North and South’ has, in the eyes
of many NGOs, lead to painfully slow progress since the UNCED 1992 summit;
many countries have yet to ratify agreements, and international initiatives (IPF, IFF,
ITFF and UNFF) established to further UNCED work, have made slow progress
(Humphries 2000).
However, from these processes, SFM emerged as a new framework. It aims to
describe management that ensures long-term forest health and productivity, while
1
N.B. A table listing all acronyms is given on page 32.
3
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
providing continued social and economic benefits (Evans 1996). In 1988, the ITTO
noted that only 0.08% of tropical forests were managed in this manner (Poore 1989).
Although endorsed in principle, SFM is not well understood in operational terms.
Currently, principles, criteria, and indicators are being developed as a means to assess
and report on progress towards SFM. These have been developed largely through
international agreements building on UNCED 1992; principally the Helsinki Process,
the Montreal Process, the Tarapoto Proposal, a renegotiated ITTA and Dry-zone
Africa (Grayson & Maynard 1997).
It has been noted that deforestation continues apace, and legislative measures to curb
unsustainable measures have largely failed due to international squabbles, general
apathy and agreements that are non-binding (Dunleavy 1993). Further, the de jure
appearances of legislation are seen to ignore the de facto realities of implementation at
the forest level. A market-based mechanism of certification was considered as a
means of circumventing these failings. Being site-specific, certification could validate
‘on-the-ground’ operations as employing the best management practices through
criteria and indicators (Upton & Bass 1995). Consumers, using a labelling system
attesting to this SFM, were to discriminate between different production methods.
Those companies who were certified could gain many benefits, chiefly improvement /
retention of market share, defence against environmental criticism, and investor
assurance. This would drive the implementation of SFM in the wood product trade.
Those who continued to practice and trade in uncertified products would have
difficulty marketing their produce. Credibility was seen as a precondition for any
successful certification scheme; independence and third party assessment were
understood to be requisite (Upton & Bass 1995).
Certification is a voluntary process, which results in a written statement attesting to
the origin of wood raw material, and its status following validation by an independent
third party (Ghazali & Simula 1994). Certification typically includes two main
components: forest management certification and product certification. Forest
management certification is based on an assessment of forest management against a
set of standards reflecting contemporary concepts of sustainability. Product
certification involves verifying the chain of custody of wood from the certified source
to the consumer. This whole process has faced repeated criticism (Counsell 1996;
Centero 1998).
Nevertheless, governments and companies are examining certification with interest; it
has become a “high profile subject in the forestry sector” (FAO 2000a). Despite the
stated purpose of certification for improving forest management, the main interest of
most of those undertaking certification at present is probably the marketing benefits it
may offer. This may explain why over 80% of FSC-certified forests are in developed
countries, and 66% are by industrial enterprises (Thornber 1999). However, in
developing countries it is noted “certification serves as an added strength as it
facilitates entry into foreign markets” (MTB 1999).
Increasing numbers of certification schemes are being developed; international,
national and regional, all can be split into two types.
(1) The performance based approach, best represented by the FSC and some emerging
national schemes (Indonesia, Malaysia and Finland), is founded on standards that
4
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
an organisation has to meet before it can be certified. This method has been
criticised because, although certification is an incentive for forests that are already
well managed, companies managing forests poorly may find adjusting their
practices very difficult. Consequently they may simply ignore certification (von
Maltitz 2000).
(2) The process-based approach, which is the basis of the system adopted by ISO
14000 series of EMS verification, assesses the quality of an organisation's
management process; how it sets its policy and management objectives, and how
it organises itself to deliver them consistently. They do not lay down specific predetermined performance standards, but rather look for continuous improvement of
environmental management. The ISO 14000 series, and in particular the forestryspecific 14061, ensure companies set increasingly higher standards and achieve
them. This approach is criticised as a means of gaining certification by compliance
with internal policy, whilst still being environmentally irresponsible. Moreover,
‘ring fencing’2 can give a misleading impression that ISO standards are applicable
to the whole of a company. Lastly, since ISO places a great emphasis on achieving
national standards, it could be argued it maintains the disparity in performances
between countries, and consequently misleads consumers (von Maltitz 2000).
Technically, ISO certify management systems and not forests, and as such they do not
enable product ‘labelling’. It is probably for this reason that ISO implementation is
greater in companies supplying predominantly to the pulp and paper sector, whilst
companies supplying wood timber opt for performance-based systems, such as the
FSC. For example, all SAPPI’s plantations in South Africa are ISO-certified, but only
those supplying saw-logs are FSC-certified (von Maltitz 2000). This contrasts with
nearby Mondi plantations, with over 430,000 ha of FSC-certified timber forest
producing only saw-logs (FSC 2000e). ISO certification meets pulp and paper
consumer demands, and thus serves as an adequate marketing tool. However, ISO has
been used by a number of companies as a step towards gaining product certification
(Bass & Simula 1999).
Increasingly, process-based schemes are incorporating performance targets;
correspondingly, performance-based schemes acknowledge the benefits of EMS
(Kanowski et al. 2000). Many see the FSC and ISO approaches to certification
working in tandem3, complimenting international and national policies to ensure SFM
is implemented at all levels. There is little support for the idea of harmonisation of
certification systems, but growing support for mutual recognition. For example, six
certification systems, including SmartWood (US Rainforest Alliance) and Woodmark
(UK Soil Association) are harmonised with the FSC, and their standards are mutually
recognised.
Prominent NGOs support the FSC process because they consider its standards to be
the most stringent and open too little ‘interpretation’. These supporters are concerned
ISO standards do not need to be applied to an entire organisation – companies can “ring fence”
activities that are included or excluded from ISO. For example, SAPPI exclude long-haul transportation
from their ISO implementation (von Maltitz 2000). Thus, the clarity of ISO has been questioned.
3
Because ISO emphasises EMS, it is seen as a powerful tool for achieving and maintaining FSC
certification (von Maltitz 2000).
2
5
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
that mutual recognition should not diminish FSC standards. However, many
advocates of alternative certification initiatives interpret this concern, rightly or
wrongly, as an attempt to maintain the dominant role of the FSC in certification.
Regionally-based systems are often espoused as better tailored to meet inherently
different local circumstances, and commercial plantations perceive the FSC as bias
towards natural forest management. However, the FSC has committed itself to
collaboration with Malaysian and Indonesian certification initiatives, with the
eventual objective that certification, by either party in those countries, might be
recognised by both parties (FSC 1999d).
2.iii. The development of genetic modification (GM)
Paralleling the rising concern over deforestation, much scientific and commercial
attention has focused on improving the genetic stock of forest trees in order to
improve productivity and quality. The demand for wood-based products is forecast to
double over the next 17 years, the onus being on paper and board products (Soil
Association 1998), which must be met from plantation-grown trees. GM and other
biotechnology techniques have provided conventional tree breeders with new tools to
meet this demand, enabling the accelerated modification of some forest trees possible
(Dinus & Tuskan 1997). The potential gains are great, since trees remain genetically
and phenotypically very similar to their wild progenitors (Wright 1976) and GM can
progress more rapidly than conventional breeding, which can take decades.
The first commercially interesting genes available to GM in forestry were those which
were developed in agriculture, and thus involved the transfer of DNA between
taxonomically distinct organisms. Traits currently being researched include herbicide
resistance, increased vigour, pest and pathogen resistance, increased tolerance to
biotic stress and improved timber quality (Riemenschneider et al. 1988; Bauer 1997;
Dickson & Walker 1997; Tzfira et al. 1998).
Recently, particularly in Europe, GM has been at the centre of a heated debate. This
has concentrated on agricultural applications, but has occasionally touched forestry.
The issues are enormously complex and not related to purely scientific questions:
there are questions of philosophy, ethics, equity, responsibility and ownership. Most
proponents have called for “credible information that promotes rational debate”
ensuring the public can make an “informed evaluation” (Strauss et al. 2000b). Some
of the media have also put forward what appears an assessment of potential benefits
and risk (Weiss 2000). However, the media are usually criticised for hyperbole. In the
UK, “pseudoscience” and “alarmist media reports” from pro- and anti-GM camps
have confused matters and brought GM into the limelight (Nuffield Council on
Bioethics 1999). Opinions are sometimes extreme. Some call for deregulation and
accelerated introduction of GMOs for economic and environmental reasons (Cantley
1998), whilst many environmental groups are very wary of potential impacts, and
consequently believe “genetically modified organisms must not be released into the
environment” (Greenpeace 2000).
The UK is an interesting case. The public generally perceive the attitudes of the large
companies pursuing GM as irresponsible and principally profit driven. Furthermore,
consumer confidence in food is very low following episodes of salmonella in chicken
eggs, E. coli and BSE in beef, and the reprocessing of condemned poultry for human
consumption. Coupled with extensive media coverage, these two factors have acted
6
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
synergistically, and the public are sceptical of the motivation behind, and safety
surrounding, GM. On 11th July 1999, campaigners destroyed most of the trees in a
research trial of GM poplars established by AstraZeneca. This action illustrated how
strongly some people felt about the potential ecological impacts of GM. These
impacts include gene flow, invasiveness and unpredictability (Owusu 1999).
However, there are also potential ecological and economic benefits (Mathews &
Campbell 2000).
The advantages and disadvantages of GM trees have been considered by many
(reviewed by Mullin & Bertrand 1998; Mathews & Campbell 2000), but as yet no GM
trees are in commercial production. Big-business is regarded by many as an outright
advocate of GM plants (Allen 1999). Conversely, the FSC and its allied certification
schemes, advocating environmental campaigners concerns, have banned outright the
use of all GM trees in the forests they certify (FSC 1997, 1999b, 2000a; Soil
Association 1998). However, many scientists believe there is a middle-ground
between these two views, and have noted “the opponents of the technology have
framed the issue as black and white. GMOs are dangerous and must be stopped.
Proponents are faced with the difficult task of trying to educate the public about the
many shades of grey” (Somerville 2000). This has raised debate about the rationality
behind a complete ban on GM trees, for “each GMO should be assessed on its own
merits” (McHughen 2000, p.113).
2.iv. GM through certifications eyes
Certification bodies can be placed in two groups; against GMOs and tolerant4 of
GMOs. The first camp is centred solely on the FSC; Principal 6.8 of FSC guidelines
states the “use of genetically modified organisms shall be prohibited” (FSC 2000a).
This is reiterated in national standards; line 266 of the FSC Forest Management
Standard the United Kingdom states simply insists “genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) are not used” (FSC 1999b), as does 6.5.11. of the Swedish FSC Standards
(FSC 1997). Certification systems recognised as equivalent to the FSC, such as The
Soil Associations’ Woodmark (section 5.610) also prohibit GMOs.
For many large companies considering certification, the FSC is one of the
international systems, largely due to its international scale5 and backing from
influential NGOs such as WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Although the
FSC have yet to publish an official document qualifying their policy towards GM 6,
supporting NGOs have disclosed their concerns (Owusu 1999) and some resolutely
reject the use of GM plants7 (Greenpeace 2000). This is important because these
NGOs are considered to hold substantial influence over FSC policy8. It is likely FSC
policy will parallel much of their supporters’ concerns, both now and in the future.
4
It is important to note this group is tolerant of GMOs. They are not pro-GM. The debate around GM
is often confused by assumptions of polarised opinions. Tolerance of GM is not necessarily support of
GM.
5
17.7 million hectares on 15th August 2000.(www.fscoax.org/principal.htm).
6
Two unofficial documents are available: (1) a brief draft document defines a GMO and confirms
deployment is against FSC policy (FSC 1999c) (2) a more comprehensive draft document outlines
perceived threats from GM (FSC 1999a).
7
“genetically modified organisms must not be released into the environment ”.
8
For example, several members of WWF are members of the FSC board with voting or proxy rights
(FSC 1999f).
7
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
The Soil Association published their policies regarding GM, and note that “it would
be sensible to apply the precautionary principle and not release GMOs into the
environment, at least till their long term impact has been determined” (Soil
Association 1998). When discussing certification accreditation they state “this
position will be kept under constant review but the evidence that is continuing to
emerge confirms the need for prudence and reinforces the logic of adopting a
precautionary principle in conjunction with a comprehensive programme of research
and monitoring” (Soil Association 1998). Thus, if research and monitoring of GMOs
satisfy certifiers’ concerns, GM and certification may be compatible, despite the
current FSC stance regarding GM.
The other certification camp is more varied. Although it claims not to be certification
system, the SFI standard of the AF & PA has all the trappings of, and is considered by
others to be, a certification system (Kiekens 2000; McKeand, pers. comm.). This U.S.
programme is industry-lead and supported by a number of NGOs, although not nearly
with the profile of those that back the FSC. However, the SFI program encompasses
more than 26.8 million hectares (Patrick 2000), and by the end of 2001 AF & PA
projects that 12.1 million hectares of member company forestlands will have been
third-party certified (Pulp & Paper 2000). This compares with just 1.8 million
hectares of US forest currently certified by the FSC (FSC 2000b).
4.1.2.1.6 of the SFI notes “program participants that utilise genetically improved
seedlings, including those derived through biotechnology, will use sound scientific
methods and follow appropriate federal and state regulations and other international
protocols” (AF&PA 2000). The AF & PA SFI programme are not alone in this regard.
The PEFC makes reference to maintaining the genetic integrity of forests, but the
“PEFC system has no specific considerations towards Genetic Engineering” (Viliotis
2000, pers. comm.) and “GM tree products are not an issue which the PEFC has had
to deal with” (Gunneberg 2000, pers. comm.). The ISO 14000 series contains
guidelines on what must be contained within an EMS, but the forest managers decide
the performance standards that must be met. Consequently, ISO would regard GM as
an extension of breeding technique, and establishes no caveat on GM. The CSA and
LEI also have no specific regard for GM technology, other than compliance with
national laws.
2.v. What is a GMO?
We lack a precise and common definition of a GMO. The FSC adopted a definition
that combined principals outlined in EC Directive 90/220 with the UK Government
Health and Safety Executive publication on Contained Use of GMOs (EU 1990,
UKGovernment 1996). This indicated a “Genetically modified organism (GMO)
means an organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does
not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination or both9” (FSC 1999a).
This definition encompasses DNA introduction via living vector systems, such as
Agrobacterium tumefaciens used with poplars and eucalyptus (Griffin 1996), and
mechanical DNA introduction methods, such as biolistics, used with Pinus radiata
(Sederoff & Stomp 1993). Moreover, ‘unnatural’10 cell fusion and hybridisation
9
Interestingly, this definition would include graft-hybrids as GMOs.
Including “in-vitro fertilisation, conjugation, transduction, transformation or any other natural
process, polyploidy induction, mutagenesis, cell fusion (including protoplast fusion) of plant cells
where the resultant organism can also be produced by traditional breeding methods” (FSC 2000b).
10
8
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
techniques would be classified as GM. All other technologies were considered
permissible.
The continuum and complexity of different breeding technologies makes
distinguishing between ‘traditional’ breeding from genetic modification very difficult.
Humankind has been genetically altering crops for millennia (Diamond 1997). This
has resulted in varieties almost unrecognisable from their wild progenitors, and these
changes may be very rapid. For example, the apical dominance of maize (Zea mays
spp. mays) makes today’s cultivars strikingly different to their wild progenitor,
teosinte (Z. mays spp. parviglumis). This change results largely from alteration of the
regulator sequence of the teosinte branched1 (tb1) gene (Doebley et al. 1997). The
remainder of the tb1 gene is identical in both maize and teosinte (Wang et al. 1999).
Moreover, the distinction between breeding systems may be inconsistent with the
FSC’s stated concerns over GM (FSC 1999a). For example, herbicide resistant plants
have been derived both ‘conventionally’ and through GM (Concar 1999). The
potential risks of gene flow and enhanced weediness from such cultivars are
considered to be very similar to GM cultivars. Indeed, some accepted methods may be
riskier than GM. For example, the FSC notes specifically that mutagenesis is
permitted (FSC 1999a), a process that involves exposing cells to ultraviolet light,
radiation or some of the “most poisonous chemicals known to humanity” (McHughen
2000, p.65). The genetic changes this induces are usually not understood. GM has
knowledge of exactly which genes have been introduced, and how they function
(MacKay et al. 1999). Leading research panels have concluded that the genes and
traits must be examined, rather than the method of genetic modification (National
Academy of Sciences 1987; National Research Council 2000).
This dichotomy between anti-GM and pro-GM camps reflects an underlying
philosophical concept, ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’11, and it is crucial to understanding
the debate about biotechnology (Kershen 2000). The label applied to a product
depends on the ‘view’ of the concept of ‘natural’. One influence on this view may be
the FSC themselves, yet other possible influences include the views of those who
lobby the FSC. It must be remembered that certification is a marketing exercise to
help promote SFM, and the FSC must create a brand, a label, respected by the
consumer. The consumer must believe that certification testifies to sustainable forest
management. Thus, the view of ‘natural’ is imperative. If the FSC feels more akin to
environmental groups or more politically influenced by these groups or a ‘green’
public, the FSC may endorse the ‘nature’ view with concomitant consequences for
regulatory policy; GM will not be certified since it is an ‘unnatural’ artefact of man’s
activity.
It is this philosophical divide which is paramount in the debate surrounding genetic
modification12. GM is viewed by many ‘environmentalists’ and members of the public
as intrinsically different from other advanced breeding techniques, including
mutagenesis, embryo rescue, somaclonal variation and cell selection. This may reside
This position, between ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’, ‘cultivated’ and ‘wild’, ‘native’ and ‘introduced’,
has a long history and has often followed fashions.
12
Other reasons do include the involvement of multinationals that have created highly centralised
supply chains; the assumption that GM plants are acceptable and that there is no choice; and the
Aristotelian concept, held by much of the public, that species have a fixed identity.
11
9
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
in the ability to insert genes from taxonomically distinct species13. It is not entirely
rational, since many crosses between plants of the same species involve plants grown
so geographically dispersed that they would never mingle DNA without human
intervention. However, the ecological impact of producing hybids and intoducing
exotic species are cited by some as a case for the possible environmental impact of
GMOs (Owusu 1999). The need for objective evidence is required by both sides of the
debate, and substantive equivalence should be invoked when considering how valid
the concerns surrounding GM are.
Even the impact assessment of the risks of GM is fraught with philosophical
arguments. As noted by Apel (2000), it is necessary to focus on those factors relevant
to an objective risk assessment, based on scientific reasoning. However, it is not clear
how this might be accomplished in practice.
3. The specific concerns of certification bodies
The FSC are the only forest certification body to have banned the use14 of GM trees in
the forests that they certify (FSC 2000a). This ban was imposed due to concerns about
the environmental safety of GMOs. The concerns have been published in an unofficial
document (FSC 1999a), and most are identical to concerns expressed by
environmental NGOs (Soil Association 1998; Owusu 1999; Greenpeace 2000). The
following chapter focuses on the FSCs stated concerns about GMOs, and considers
each issue by discussing equivalent practices examined by the FSC. Where
appropriate other certification systems are considered.
3.i. Reduced ‘diversity’15
GM technology is likely to be employed by fine-tuning genera and species already
adapted to a site and which can be mass propagated for direct use in plantations
(Griffin 1996). This has caused concern within the FSC: “Plantations using one or
few transgenic clones will contain less landscape-level diversity than is currently
found in plantations using species or varieties resulting from traditional treebreeding” (FSC 1999a). Yet this misgiving is not restricted to GM per se. Clonal
forestry is already well established for Eucalyptus and Pinus radiata, and has been
performed with Populus species for over one hundred years (Muhs 1993). The risk of
reduced diversity is equally applicable in any clonal plantation. Diversity
requirements should be established regardless of whether a tree is GM, clonal or
exotic; certification standards recognise this.
PEFC guidelines16 for Forest Management Practices aim to maintain and
‘appropriately’ enhance (PEFC 1998). What exactly is meant by genetic diversity is
not made clear in this document. Furthermore, these guidelines expounded very little
at a national level (PEFC 1999). For example, specific targets of genetic diversity are
13
Although traditional hybridisational also acheives this.
The FSC has also banned the research of GM trees in the forests it certifies (FSC 1999a).
15
Concerns have been raised about all levels of diversity - landscape, community, species, and
population.
16
2.2a, 4.1a, 4.2a, and 4.2b (PEFC 1998).
14
10
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
not set other than for natural regeneration. The SFI system is even more vague, and
does not set out criteria for maintaining or enhancing genetic diversity (AF&PA
2000). In contrast, the FSC is specific: “Diversity in the composition of plantations is
preferred, so as to enhance the economic, ecological and social stability. Such
diversity may include the size and spatial distribution of management units within the
landscape, number and genetic composition of species, age classes & structure”
(10.3, FSC 2000a).
At a national level, the FSC sets detailed targets for the minimum species diversity in
any plantation. For example, line 365 of FSC UK guidelines (UKWAS 2000a) limits
the proportions of different species within a wood. A maximum of 65% of the wood
may be of a primary species, and only 75% of the wood may be composed of one
species if it is the sole species suited to the site and the owners’ objectives. The
remainder of the wood must be a certain combination of native broadleaves, open
space, secondary species or areas actively managed for biodiversity. However, this
has resulted in oak (Quercus robur and Q. petrea) coppices in Wales, S.W. England
and the Wyre Midlands having to be diversified despite being the result of decades of
traditional management (Simon Pryor, pers. comm.). Similarly, in Germany, forests
that are considered models of excellent SFM cannot gain FSC certification because
beech (Fagus sylvatica) dominates the canopy, just as it would under natural
conditions (Hans-Albrect Wiehler, pers. comm.). Critics of such an arbitrary figure
are justified; no account of the natural forest composition is made. Moreover, multiple
species composition is not always correlated with diverse flora and fauna – woods
with a high proportion of English oak (Q. robur) will have much greater biodiversity
than a dense plantation of mixed exotic conifers (Peterken 1992). Each situation
should be examined on its own merits.
FSC UK guidelines, line 365, was recently clarified for a clonal poplar system. “The
fact that a primary species comprises two or more different clones, varieties,
provenances or origins does not alter the requirement for there to be no more than
65% (or 75%) of a species” (UKWAS 2000a). Yet it has been noted that these
guidelines could be stretched, permitting a single poplar clone to comprise 65% of the
forest (Simon Pryor, pers. comm.). Interestingly, this FSC UK standard is contrary to
some other FSC national criteria. For example, FSC Sweden criteria 6.5.11 notes
“cloned material is not to be used on a large scale pending an environmental impact
assessment”. It is likely this criteria has been established for FSC Sweden because
Swedish (and German) government regulations prohibit the use of monoclonal
plantations17 (Zobel 1993) unless they are arranged in a way that simulates a seedling
population (Rod Griffin, pers. comm.).
It has also been noted that FSC certification could be awarded in plantations where
diversification is merely planned, rather than after it has been achieved (Simon Pryor,
pers. comm.). Indeed, the issue of ‘planned improvement’ has become very
contentious and applies to other sectors of FSC certification: “...worryingly, many
certificates appear to be awarded on the basis of hoped-for improvement in the
management logging operations, rather than the actual good quality at the time of
assessment” (Counsell 1999). If GM forests are to be certified they will have to meet
17
An exception is made for poplars since they have been grown monoclonally for over 100 years
(Muhs 1993).
11
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
these existing FSC criteria. It is clearly likely that GM would pose no additional threat
to forest diversity beyond that already associated with plantation forestry.
3.ii. Asexual transfer of genes
Antibiotic resistance genes have been used extensively in the generation of GMOs.
Resistance genes are incorporated in target plant genomes, along with the desired
gene sequence conferring a specific trait, as a means of identifying that transfer has
taken place. Such sequences are often referred to as selectable markers. This has
caused some concern amongst the scientific and ‘environmental’ communities;
“Asexual transfer of genes from GMOs with antibiotic resistance to pathogenic
micro-organisms, and/or suppression of mycorrhizae and other micro-organisms,
arising from the use of GMOs with antibiotic resistance” (FSC 1999a).
The transfer of antibiotic resistance genes among prokaryotes is known to be
common, although it may occur between bacteria and higher organisms (Istock 1991).
For example, horizontal gene transfer is the most parsimonious explanation for the
shared biochemical pathways of some microbes and plants (Strobel et al. 1994;
Radmacher 1996). Moreover, gene homology has been found in Bradyrhizobium
japonicum, and is probably the result of eukaryote to prokaryote gene transfer
(Carlson & Chelm 1986). Host plant DNA has been found in the spores of the
parasitic fungus Plasmodium brassicae in the laboratory, although whether this DNA
is incorporated into the prokaryotic genome is not clear (Bryngelsson et al. 1988). The
successful incorporation of DNA would require the recipient organism acquiring the
transgenic trait, and then passing the gene to the population would depend of the
fitness effects of the gene, subsequent selection pressures put on the gene, and the
scale of gene flow to the recipient population. In all, there is a negligible likelihood of
horizontal gene transfer but many potential mechanisms are proposed (James et al.
1998). If horizontal gene transfer were not so rare there would be extensive genetic
similarities between plants and bacteria (Strauss 2000a). Indeed, spontaneous
mutations giving rise to antibiotic resistant bacteria are several orders of magnitude
more likely than asexual DNA transfer from GMOs (McHughen 2000, p.186).
Although the potential effects of a possible transfer of antibiotic resistance may be
very damaging, rational risk analysis on a case by case basis invariably finds it
perfectly acceptable (Apel 2000).
Antibiotic resistance genes are not a prerequisite for producing GMOs; many GMtrees are being produced using alternative in vitro selection systems, particularly by
Nippon Paper (Ebinuma et al. 1997). If the selection sequences are benign, GMOs
would not warrant any fears about the transmission of antibiotic resistance, and hence
should satisfy this aspect of certification demands.
3.iii. Herbicide resistance genes
The FSC has three concerns over the introduction of herbicide resistance genes18:
increased weed resistance; increased herbicide usage; and transgene escape. FSC
“Spread of herbicide resistance gene in sexual progeny to trees in environments where those trees
are undesirable and where the target herbicide is used, and/or increased weed resistance to target
herbicide, and/or increased use of target herbicide arising from use of GMOs with herbicide
resistance” (FSC 1999a). (N.B. Although in the absence of gene flow increased weed resistance is a
consequence of increased herbicide usage and this is a management problem, and not associated with
GM technology. The risks always present themselves, even with non-GM material.)
18
12
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
concerns are paralleled by some environmental NGOs; Section 2.3 of a WWF report
raises concerns about “augmenting the selection pressure on target weeds ...
facilitating herbicide resistance in the long term” (Owusu 1999). The concerns are
valid, since herbicide resistance in weeds has already been documented numerous
times in ‘conventional’ agriculture (Shultz et al. 1990).
Section 261 of the UK FSC standard notes “synthetic chemicals may be needed” (FSC
1999b). It also states that this section will be reviewed following the production of a
DSS, developed under Section 5.2 of the analogous UKWAS certification system
(FSC 1999b). The DSS is to aid in pest, weed and nutrient management decisions, and
has yet to be published. However, a draft DSS document (UKWAS 2000b) is in
circulation. It notes “guidance is based on the premise that
 pesticide usage should not be the automatic method of first choice for controlling
pests and weeds;
 there are problems for which research and experience have so far failed to find
non-chemical remedies that do not entail excessive cost or pose a greater
environmental risk than pesticides."
In other words, all options should be explored when dealing with a problem, and in
some instances chemical methods are appropriate because they can be economically
or ecologically advantageous. Continuing this argument, GM should be considered,
for it may produce cheaper and more environmentally sound pest control (USDA
1999).
The DSS gives guidelines about assessing which methodology, whether chemical or
otherwise, to apply to potential problems. It outlines parameters such as cost,
effectiveness, toxicity and impacts of different practices. It continues “If the use of a
chemical is necessary and a choice is available, evaluate the risks of environmental
damage”. Further, “...reference should be made to ‘Environmental Impacts’ which
gives general information and a table to assist in choosing the material with the least
impact”. Essentially, the DSS gives a permitted list of options, chemical or otherwise,
and asks the forest manager to make a value judgement for best practice and damage
limitation: “Users should decide ... using their professional judgement” and
“determine the range of suitable pesticides, dose rates and application patterns from
the tables and supplementary literature ... make an assessment on the likely effects of
the pesticide using the table in this section”. Thus, each individual situation needs
consideration in the field, from which an appropriate course of action can be taken.
One could argue that in many instances GM fulfils DSS requirements, for the “aim
should always be the minimum quantity of herbicide required to give the desired
degree of control”. An ERS/NASS Agricultural Resource Management study (USDA
1999) on herbicide treatments on GM herbicide resistant cotton and soybean
compared application rates to all other seed technologies, and found that 50% to 60%
of spayed crops had significantly lower herbicide application at the 5% level (USDA
1999). Further USDA research has shown that between 1997 and 1998, U.S. national
pesticide treatments were reduced by 6.2% and was accounted for by the introduction
of Bt resistant crops (Fernandez-Cornejo et al. 2000). Reduced herbicide applications
may also lessen the selective pressures on weeds.
13
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
The DSS report continues “herbicides that have low toxicity should be favoured” and
“in many cases a carefully directed spray of broad spectrum product will be the most
effective option and offer the least risk to non-target species”. These are often cited as
pro-GM arguments. The introduction of a herbicide resistant transgene such as
Roundup Ready® confers resistance to glyphosate, and has been considered as one of
GMs greatest successes (Tzfira et al. 1998). The DSS states glyphosate (Roundup Pro
Biactive®) is “not hazardous, not toxic to invertebrates, not harmful to aquatic life,
and has low selectivity”. It is a safe, broad-spectrum herbicide, considered
environmentally benign because it breaks down quickly into non-toxic end products.
If used properly, a Roundup Ready® gene could lessen the environmental impact of
weed control; over the top spraying becomes feasible (Dickson & Walker 1997),
enabling post-emergence treatment when weeds are vulnerable (Rogers & Parkes
1995), and a reduction in herbicide usage because the “use of pre-emptive weed
control is often more effective than dealing with greater problems later” (UKWAS
2000b). A recent study confirmed these benefits; Roundup Ready® agricultural crops
enabled the substitution of most synthetic herbicides with glyphosate. “The herbicides
that glyphosate replaces are 3.4 to 16.8 times more toxic .... and persist in the
environment nearly twice as long” (Fernandez-Cornejo et al. 2000).
Indeed, conventional weed treatments, such as tilling and mowing, can be very
damaging to the environment. The DSS report notes that “Mowing is largely
ineffective as a weed control measure” and “often needs to be repeated several times
a year for many years”. Furthermore, “mowing creates a grassy weed flora that is
harmful to trees” and “can result in soil compaction ... and pollution from exhausts
and spillage of fuel and lubricants”. The reduced need for tillage control of weeds can
lessen erosion (James et al. 1998).
The FSC recognises that, under some conditions, herbicide use is warranted.
Chemical use is a judgement made by the forest manager. If he or she justifies usage
soundly, having considered all possible alternatives, then certification follows. This
rationale could be extended to GM. There are many possible applications of
transgenics. The specific trait and its proposed use should be examined, just as for
other technologies. Furthermore, substantive equivalence should be cited; the DSS
goes on to state “there are some situations in which complete removal of all other
vegetation over the whole site may be considered”. Despite the fact that such a radical
measure could have a significant effect on a site, it has been judged to be acceptable.
It is highly unlikely that GM would result in removal of all other vegetation from a
site, yet it has not been judged to be acceptable.
3.iv. Insect resistant GMOs
The FSC consider a potential hazard of GM trees to include “increased resistance of
target insect pests, and/or deleterious effects on natural enemies of the target insects,
and/or deleterious effects on insects such as butterflies, pollinators, soil microbes,
arising from the use of GMOs with insect resistance” (FSC 1999a). These concerns
are thought to stem largely from U.S. studies on the effects of GM-corn modified with
Bt19 transgenes. Two studies have reported negative impacts of Bt toxins on the
19
Bt is strictly the species Bacillus thuringiensis. However, Bt also refers to an insecticidal toxin
produced by this bacterium. There are many strains of Bt, and each produces a unique toxin; some
toxins are species-specific, other toxins are more general, and are produced by the whole genus.
14
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus; Losley (1999) and Hanson & Obrycki (2000).
These papers have since been criticised as unscientific or taken out of context by the
media (Shears & Sheldon 2000), but have generated public apprehensions. Other
concerns are voiced by NGOs; Section 2.4 of a WWF report considers insect pesticide
resistance, noting “Bt crops will augment the selection pressure placed on target
pests and this will inevitably lead to an increased frequency on Bt-resistance genes
within the insect’s gene pool” (Owusu 1999).
Such misgivings over continual plant insecticide production are valid. Bt sprays have
been used for decades in conventional and organic agriculture, and are considered “a
safe and effective bio-pesticide” (Greenpeace 2000), despite scientific research
questioning the safety of Bt spays (Swadener 1994). For forestry operations in the US
and Canada, Bt is often the only insecticide that is sanctioned. It has also been widely
used in Europe; in Spain Bt is frequently applied against gypsy moth Lymantria
dispar (Speight & Wainhouse 1989). However, the continued exposure of pests to Bt
toxins has selected for many resistant insects (Tabashnik et al. 1990; Talekar &
Shelton 1993; Tabashnik 1994; Bauer 1997; Tang et al. 1997; Speight et al. 1999).
Such resistance is thought to have developed through continued exposure to sprays on
non-transgenic crops, and where these sprays have persisted in the soil following
application (Saxena et al. 1999).
Despite ten years of proven insect resistance in the field, Bt sprays remain on the
market and are an acceptable practice under rigorous ‘organic’ guidelines (EU 1991).
This may lie in the perception that Bt is a ‘natural’ product, produced by bacteria. In
fact, Bt is not an obligate pathogen. Vegetative cells can be induced to sporulate and
produce a crystal containing toxic proteins ( endo-toxins) when they are grown in
sub-optimal regimes in fermentation chambers (Speight & Wainhouse 1989). The
FSC has misgivings over the use of transgenically introduced Bt toxin, despite studies
showing that Bt transgenic plants can often provide a pesticide delivery system that
manages insect resistance better than pesticide delivered through Bt sprays (Roush,
1994). Whilst it is undecided if pest control using spray Bt as a whole bacterium is
dangerous (Swadener 1994), it may be safer to use Bt transgenes incorporated by GM,
and so reduce the probability of gene transfer between bacterium (Helgason et al.
2000).
Concern about the “build up of resistance to natural biological controls or the
chemicals used to control them” (Soil Association 1998) is legitimate and of
considerable importance. Pests acquiring resistance from elevated exposure to
selective controls could be problematic for future generations. Insect resistance to Bt
will eventually develop, GM or no GM, because Bt sprays have been used extensively
by organic farmers since the 1950’s (McHughen 2000). The same is true of chemical
pesticides, used by conventional farmers for decades. In fact, given that the precision
of delivery is increased with GM, there may be a lower likelihood of the development
of insect resistance to Bt toxin with GM crops, especially if refugia of non-GM trees
are used (Roush 1994).
However, “Bt crops” refers to GM plants containing the gene sequence for producing insecticidal Bt
toxin.
15
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
The use of many chemicals is permitted under UKWAS, and thus FSC, guidelines
(UKWAS 2000b). Some have potentially severe impacts, and it is these chemicals
with which GM must be compared against. For example, permethrin is used for the
control of Hylobius abietis, a weevil that can devastate restocked stands (UKWAS
2000b). Described as “low selectivity, extremely dangerous to aquatic life, dangerous
to invertebrates and toxic to bees (do not apply when flowering vegetation present).”
It “may damage non-target vegetation”, and has been “identified as a potential
endocrine disrupting chemical by IEH (UK Institute for Environmental Health) and
EA (Environment Agency)” (UKWAS 2000b). Yet under UKWAS and UK FSC
standards, use of permethrin is acceptable. This practice is contrary to FSC
International standards (FSC 2000a), a position expounded by the Swedish FSC
standard: “substances, including chemical pesticides and herbicides in the Chemicals
Inspectorate’s class 1 & 2 that are harmful to the environment & health shall not be
used for the treatment of forest land. Permethrin treatment is currently exempted
(until and including 1999)” (FSC 1997). Why would an exception be made for a
chemical that otherwise contravenes FSC standards. It is the only means of controlling
a potentially devastating pest. Other chemicals e.g. granular carbosulfan, and remedial
options, e.g. weevil guards, are feasible but are more expensive20. Moreover, “plants
may require additional treatment(s) after planting, especially if small plant sizes are
used” (UKWAS 2000b). Permethrin is certainly the cheapest, most commonly utilised
and widely vocated practice. It may deemed acceptable because it has been used for
years.
GM could conceivably provide a more ‘ecologically friendly’ alternative. Bt toxins
are very specific insecticides, and target only susceptible species (Raffa et al. 1997;
Speight & Wylie 200l). A Bt toxin specific to H. abietis could be inserted into the
plant, just as has been done in Populus against the beetle Chrysomela tremulae
(Moffat 1996). This would target only the pest, and possibly closely related species,
which both predated the plant; a very precise application of insecticide. In contrast
with the current practice of using permethrin, such an application of GM may be
justified under DSS guidelines: “the use of selective pesticides may offer less impact
than some non-chemical methods that are not species specific” (UKWAS 2000b).
Although not taking a specifically GM stance, 5.2.b of the PEFC standards states
“inappropriate use of chemicals or other harmful substances or inappropriate
silvicultural practices influencing water quality in any way should be avoided” (PEFC
1998). 6.3.3 of Annex 2 of PEFC Sweden is more succinct: “the use of chemical
treatment is minimised and only used when other suitable methods do not exist”
(PEFC 1999). In light of the earlier DSS discussion (pages 13-15), which describes
appropriate methods of soil, weed and pest management, it is fair to comment that
using chemicals can be justified in certified forests. One could thus argue for GMO
certification following a rigorous assessment of impacts and risk. Interestingly, PEFC
Sweden goes on to state “It is especially noted that permethrin is allowed during an
exception period”.
Whilst potentially reducing environmental impacts, transgenic plants producing
pesticides do not allay the fears over increased pest resistance. The introduction of
20
Permethrin costs are estimated at between £40 and £240 per hectare, granular Carbonsulfan at £415
per hectare and weevil guards at £1100 per hectare (UKWAS 2000b).
16
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
single genes may be the easiest approach to resistance, but single genes are
susceptible to shifts in the gene pool following selective pressures, and are thus
vulnerable to mutations within pest populations (Pimentel et al. 1989). This is
particularly pertinent for tree crops, which have years of exposure in a single rotation.
In agricultural crops monogenic resistance is overcome in a few years (Wilcox et al.
1996), so pests could devastate tree plantations in mid-rotation. This has been
recognised by most proponents of GM, who recommend a very selective use21 of
transgenic pest resistant trees until more genes of diverse function have been
identified (Strauss 2000a). However, every gene system and not all simple resistance
systems will be overwhelmed rapidly. For example, linkage analysis in loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda) showed that resistance to the rust Cronartium quercuum was monogenic
and has been successful despite more than 40 years exploitation as a commercial crop
(Wilcox et al. 1996).
If exposure to a pesticide could be reduced, the selective pressure on target species
might decrease, hence reducing the rate at which a species attains resistance. This
could be achieved by linking the expression of inserted genes to inducible promoters.
A level of predation could then be tolerated before the trees transgenic defences were
activated (Strauss 1998). Furthermore, since many pests attack trees at a specific age
(usually juvenile), it could be possible to link transgene expression to developmental
stage. This would also reduce the exposure of pests to a toxin. The most prudent
compromise seems to be the use of transgenic resistance as a supplement to existing
quantitative resistance developed through conventional breeding (Burdon 1999).
Thus, coupled with Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) analysis using Marker Assisted
Selection (MAS), GM could actually help ensure more lasting pest resistance (Burdon
1999).
FSC Criterion 6.6 notes “management systems shall promote the development and
adoption of environmentally friendly non-chemical methods of pest management and
strive to avoid the use of chemical pesticides”. As noted in the DSS, judgements about
pest management must be made by the forest manager and tailored to site specifics
(UKWAS 2000b). Importantly, GM could be viewed as an effective non-chemical
method. A major motivation for transgenic research is that GMOs are expected to
have fewer ecological impacts than use of current chemical practices. English Nature
recognise that the use of crops modified for insect tolerance may have potential
benefits for farmland wildlife, particularly if their use results in “better targeted or
lower impact of agrochemicals” (English Nature 2000). Thus a GM tree producing
allopathic or insecticidal chemicals could fulfil criterion 6.6.
3.v. Lignin modification
Trees modified for lignin, and indeed other traits such as pest and herbicide resistance,
will only be of advantage using short rotation crops such as poplar, eucalypts and
some pines (Griffin 1996; Strauss 2000a). Indeed, Jonas Jacobsson of AssiDomän
stated “There may be an economic advantage [of using GM] if you have a plantation
with a short rotation” (3C Associates 2000).
21
e.g., in very short-rotation plantations, when very large refugia are provided, and where ecological or
genetic factors limit gene flow to low levels (Strauss 2000a).
17
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
The modification of lignin biosynthetic pathways could improve the suitability of
trees for pulping (Pullman et al. 1998). This can be achieved by reducing lignin
content or altering the biochemical composition of lignin; both mechanisms may
reduce the need for chemical inputs to treat the pulp. For example, in transgenic
tobacco the modification of lignin biosynthetic pathways reduced the Kappa value by
15% (Halpin et al. 1994), i.e. 15% less chemical bleaching was required to whiten the
pulp. Enhanced lignin extractability has been reported with GM poplars (Baucher et
al. 1998; Whetton et al. 1998). The potential benefits are substantial, with estimates
suggesting that pine cad mutants could save $4 per tonne of paper produced by the
Kraft process (Jeremy Brawner, pers. comm.). Indeed, a 1% reduction in timber lignin
content would increase pulp yield by 1% - 1.5%, and could save the global paper
industry billions of dollars (3C Associates 2000). Moreover, reduced inputs of energy,
chlorine and other hazardous chemicals could lessen environmental impacts
proportionately.
Booker and Sell (1998) suggest that lignin modification could compromise the
structural integrity of trees and reduce their natural defences, whilst the FSC is
concerned about “adaptation and pest resistance of trees, rate of decay of dead wood,
and soil structure, biology or fertility, arising from use of GMOs with modified lignin
chemistry” (FSC 1999a). However, it appears possible to modify the lignin content of
trees without compromising plant viability (MacKay et al. 1997; Franke et al. 2000),
and it is likely altered lignin composition will have very minor consequences
(Dickson & Walker 1997).
Clone 7-56 of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) is a naturally occurring mutant with a
modified lignin biosynthetic pathway (MacKay et al. 1997; Ralph et al. 1997).
Conventional tree breeders long ago identified 7-56’s value as a parent in the
production of trees with improved growth and pulping characteristics and thus
incorporated it into their breeding programmes. Consequently, 7-56 progeny are
planted on a massive scale throughout the southern states of the USA (Jeremy
Brawner, pers. comm.). There have been no reported negative side effects of using
this clone or its progeny, and no certification programmes have an issue with 7-56,
having certified several thousand hectares (Jeremy Brawner, pers. comm.). MacKay et
al. (1995) showed that mutation of the cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase gene (cad1-n)
is responsible for 7-56’s modified lignin. Plants that have an equivalent phenotype to
the cad1-n mutant have been generated for tobacco and poplar (Halpin et al. 1994;
Lapierre et al. 1999). Thus the same phenotypic effect can be derived by both
conventional and GM methods. It seems paradoxical that a conventionally bred CAD
null tree can be accepted and yet CAD-deficient mutants generated through GM
cannot. They have the same phenotype and are thus very likely to have the same
ecological impacts.
This example illustrates a problem for certification with respect to the use of GM to
alter lignin. That is, 7-56 homozygotes and CAD-deficient plants derived through GM
are phenotypically equivalent, discriminated simply by method of production.
Moreover, the FSC’s concerns over lignin modification altering “rate of decay of dead
wood, soil structure, biology and fertility” conflict with other FSC-accepted practices.
Conifers, such as pines, and angiosperms, such as eucalypts, can be interchangeably
planted on the same land. Their very different lignin and wood chemistry, as well as
other chemical differences between these diverse taxa, may bring about ecological
18
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
changes greater than anything possible via modification of lignin through GM per se.
Moreover, the wood chemistry of exotic species is thought to effect the ecology of
plantations far more than lignin modification of a native species. It is this that makes
some believe the FSC has “no place bringing lignin modification as a rational
concern” (Strauss 2000b) regarding the certification of GM trees.
3.vi. Transgene escape
Widespread anxiety has been expressed over the possible contamination of wild
populations by transgenic plants, which could compromise natural fitness or introduce
some components of fitness that would increase a species weediness potential (Rogers
& Parkes 1995; van Raamsdonk & Schouten 1997; Burdon 1999; Ellstrand et al.
1999). The FSC have detailed their concerns over transgene escape22, and make
particular reference to the potentially negative impacts arising from the spread of
herbicide resistance23.
Assessing transgene escape is very complex24 (Kjellsson 1996; Ammann 1999). In
brief, considerations must be made regarding: (1) the likelihood of gene flow; (2) the
probability of gene establishment (introgression) (Ellstrand et al. 1999); and (3) the
impact of an introgressed transgene, which will depend on its effect on the ecological
factors regulating the recipient plant population (Crawley et al. 1993; Dale 1994;
Schmitt & Linder 1994; Gray & Raybould 1998). Assessing and quantifying these
variables draws on theoretical ecology, comparisons with introduced exotic species
and recently conducted experimental work. Trees present additional obstacles for
analysis because of their long generation times, large size and potential for long
distance dispersal of pollen and seed (DiFazio et al. 1998). Thus each transgene and
its application must be examined in isolation. These factors have yet to be assessed,
since not a single GM tree has yet received approval to reach sexual maturity in a
field environment (Griffin 1996). Consideration is given to gene flow, and increased
‘invasiveness’.
a) Gene flow
To date, most studies have focused on gene flow via pollen in agricultural crops (van
Raamsdonk & Schouten 1997). This follows a rational call to assess each species
independently due to differences in pollen biology: wind-pollinated plants will
disperse their pollen over much greater distances than insect-pollinated species. Pollen
may flow into the gene pool of a nearby species, by either outbreeding depression
(fitness reduction following hybridisation) or genetic assimilation (dilution of the
genetic integrity of the wild species until it is effectively assimilated into the crop
species, Ellstrand 1992). This is not restricted to GM plants, but is a potential problem
for any plantation, particularly if it constitutes a narrow gene pool since similar genes
could ‘flood’ neighbouring populations. For example, hybridisation with non“Dispersal of transgenes to wild or weed populations, with potentially negative impacts, from nonsterile GMO trees, or from those with incomplete or unstable sterility” (FSC 1999a).
23
“Spread of herbicide resistance gene in sexual progeny to trees in environments where those trees
are undesirable and where the target herbicide is used” (FSC 1999a).
24
The probability of gene escape depends upon; temporal and spatial opportunities for cross
pollination; sexual compatibility between plants; a viable interspecific hybrid; fertile and viable
successive backcrosses between hybrids and wild relatives; effective introgression through genomic
recombination; the maintenance of introgressed genes from generation to generation; and an enhanced
ecological performance of hybrids/backcrosses to natural species (Dale 1994; Rissler & Mellon 1996;
van Raamsdonk & Schouten 1997; Chevre et al. 1998).
22
19
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
transgenic crops has been implicated in the extinction of at least five wild relatives of
food crops (Small 1984) and the Californian walnut (Juglans hindsii) (Ellstrand
1992)25.
The more taxonomically distant an exotic tree is from native species, the lower the
chance of gene transfer. Conceivably, if sufficiently distant exotic species of GM trees
were used, there would be no risk of transgene passage to native plants. They could
thus be certified. Conversely, the more closely related a crop tree is to indigenous
wild relatives, the greater the likelihood of gene flow. Thus, in the UK, crops have
been classified based on their potential to hybridise with wild species (Rogers &
Parkes 1995); black poplar (Populus nigra) and Scotts pine (Pinus sylvestris) have
been placed in the highest risk category. Physical proximity is also important; pollen
dispersal experiments have confirmed a negative exponential or leptokurtic range of
pollen distribution (Scheffer et al. 1993). However, gene flow in poplars has been
demonstated over distances of at least 10 Km (Strauss et al. 2000c). This research
exemplifies the potential for transgene spread; limited gene flow is inevitable if GM
plants are grown close their relatives (van Raamsdonk & Schouten 1997; Ellstrand et
al. 1999; McHughen 2000, p.166). It is also noted that “it is a clear mistake to place
emphasis on pollen-based gene flow and nothing on the more obvious [sic. seed] route
for gene escape” (McHughen 2000, p.166), for this enables gene flow through time as
well as space. It is probable that legislation will require sterility in GM trees (Burdon
1999).
If genes do manage to pass between related species, several modifications are
predicted to give plants a selective advantage, including enhanced tolerance to
environmental factors, such as salinity, and pest resistance (Rogers & Parkes 1995).
Herbicide resistance is only likely to confer a selective advantage to plants if they are
exposed to herbicides. However, plants carrying these traits may be disadvantaged
due to the metabolic costs of synthesising proteins in the absence of a selective
advantage. Experiments with perennials generated mixed results, suggesting there are
no costs associated with resistance genes (Lavigne et al. 1995) but weediness is not
increased (Crawley et al. 1993; Snow et al. 1999). However, research is yet to be
performed on trees, and is also needed to determine if there is a greater risk
attributable to GM transgene spread than to conventional gene spread. However, one
of the problems facing regulators and users of GM plants is the quantification of small
risks from such experiments, and then scaling them up to plantation scale (Rogers &
Parkes 1995). Large-scale releases of pollen will result in a larger flow of genes to
wild relatives. Such genes may increase in frequency in the wild population
irrespective of their fitness effects, such that a large scale plantations may be
sufficient to overcome any deleterious fitness effects of the transgenes (Dale 1994;
Gliddon 1994; van Raamsdonk & Schouten 1997). This issue is also not unique to
GM plantations, but to any large scale plantation.
The risk assessment of gene escape also depends on the nature of the gene. Again, this
is equally true of conventional and GM plants. For example, in agriculture ‘Smart
Although the evidence for genetic extinction is relatively poor and the alternative is
the suggestion that crossing may aid conservation through the conservation of alleles
in ‘compilospecies’.
25
20
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
Canola’ has been conventionally bred to express resistance to two herbicides (Concar
1999). Such plants present very similar risks as GM ones, and should therefore be
subject to the same risk assessments, for “if the concern over gene spread is valid, the
method of initial production is irrelevant” (McHughen 2000, p.113). Thus, the
certification requirements imposed on any plantations should be examined.
Most certification systems make specific reference to utilising appropriate
provenances, varieties and species26. These criteria, particularly those of the PEFC,
are designed to address principally the concerns over gene spread between endemic
species. Some criteria are very specific, for example 6.3 209 FSC UK requires that
“species diversity is maintained and dilution of the local gene pool is minimised”
(FSC 1999b). Indeed, FSC UK set stringent requirements on total species
composition. However, the caveat ‘appropriate’ and similar dispensations appear in
most of these criteria: “Seed of local provenance is used wherever it is available and
considered appropriate for planting and restocking of native species” (9.2 335 FSC
UK); “for reforestation and afforestation, origins of native species and local
provenances that are well adapted to site conditions should be preferred, where
appropriate.” (4.2b, PEFC 1998). These exemptions recognise that sustainable
forestry is a balance between ecological and financial objectives, and ultimately
dependent on numerous variables for which it would be impossible to specifically
legislate.
Certification may be awarded for planned improvements, and forest managers may
make extremely literal interpretations of the criteria. Whilst the criteria aim to prevent
subjectivity, ultimately the interpretations of individual assessors will have a role,
which may explain why some certification standards have been criticised (Counsell
1999).
b) Increased ‘invasiveness’
“Considering the analogy with exotics has been a helpful one in regulating the release
of GM” (Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1999); this is because the community level
effects of transgenes acquisition by wild relatives have been hypothesised to be
similar to those of introduced species (Schmitt & Linder 1994; Williamson 1994;
Rogers & Parkes 1995; Rissler & Mellon 1996). Most seriously, the competitive
superiority of GM plants, as a consequence of an acquired transgene, may lead to the
exclusion and extinction of the native plants (van Raamsdonk & Schouten 1997); “it
is the traits that increase competitive behaviour that are of primary concern”
(Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1999). The effects of increased competitiveness can
cascade through the ecosystem (Rissler & Mellon 1996), for example, in the United
States, 42% of the species on the threatened or endangered species list are at risk
primarily because of non-indigenous species (USDA 1999) costing the US economy
an estimated $138 billion a year (Pimentel et al. 1999). However, some prominent
GM scientists “do not believe that transgenics have properties even remotely similar
to invasive exotics, and should not be considered along with them for scientific or
regulatory purposes”.
Exotics form the mainstay of industrial plantations in many countries, and total 98%
of the US food system (Pimentel et al. 1999). This is because they grow so well; 10.4,
26
Guidelines 2.2a, 4.1a, 4.2a, and 4.2b (PEFC 1998), Principles 6.3b and 10.3 (FSC 2000a).
21
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
363 FSC UK notes “...native species are preferred. Exotic species are only used
where they will substantially out perform native species in terns of meeting the
objectives of plantations” (FSC 1999b).
In New Zealand 6% of the country is covered in plantation forest. This generates the
majority of US$1.42 billion of timber product exports (FAO 2000b), which accounts
for 5.5% of national export earnings (ODCI 1999)27. Most of the plantations are of the
exotic Pinus radiata, which has been intensively selected, converting the poor wild
form into a straight-trunked, fast-growing tree crop (Chilvers & Burdon 1983). Pinus
radiata can be highly invasive (Cronk & Fuller 1995), and is considered to be a
‘significant problem’ in scrubland, forest margins, sand dunes, open land and short
and tall tussockland (Williams & Timmins 1990). Fletcher Challenge Forests recently
decided to opt for FSC and ISO certification of their New Zealand forests, in order to
maintain their position in U.S. markets (Kelly 2000). Earlier FSC certifications in
New Zealand, such as the Rayonier’s 34,000 ha Southlands Estate, have not
considered exotic species inherently problematic. As FSC 6.9 states, “The use of
exotic species shall be carefully controlled and actively monitored to avoid adverse
ecological impacts”. The situation is similar in Scotland. 6.1 173 FSC UK states
“operations planned with consideration of: the spread of invasive species across the
forest boundary in either direction”. Thus, it could be argued that the certification of
exotic and/or invasive species is possible when contingencies exist for potential
negative impacts.
The issue of invasive exotics is also pertinent in South Africa, where timber and pulp
production are almost entirely dependent on exotic species – pines, eucalypts and
Australian acacias (‘wattle’) (von Maltitz 2000). Many of these species have been
demonstrated to be highly invasive, particularly in the Fynbos (Cronk & Fuller 1995)
and veld-grasslands (Cooper 1999). Indeed, SAPPI have a special eradication
programme for alien invasives. Yet three forestry companies have hundreds of
thousands of hectares of FSC certified exotic, potentially invasive, forest (FSC 2000c;
Von Maltitz 2000). This has drawn criticism from environmental groups in South
Africa such as WESSA, who have expressed concern about the credibility of the FSC
over their policy surrounding exotics (Murphy 1999).
If the potential impact of GM trees is to be analysed, the risks must be considered
against current policies for exotic species. The introduction of non-native species is
specifically warranted by the FSC. For example, the great spruce bark beetle
Dendroctonus micans is a pest of exotic spruce plantations (Speight & Wainhouse
1989) and costly crop losses can be controlled by the exotic predatory beetle
Rhizophagus grandis. Thus, 6.9 270 FSC UK states the “use of non-native biological
controls such as Rhizophagus grandis may be desirable to control non-native pests”.
The use of this exotic beetle reduces economic costs and insecticide application. Its
interactions with the environment have, and never will be, fully elucidated, but the
benefits are deemed greater than the potential impacts. These arguments ring true for
GM.
27
To put this in perspective, Guyana is considered highly dependent on wood product sales that
generate 6.5% of export earnings (FAO 2000b, ODCI 1999).
22
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
3.vii. Restricted access to advantages
The development costs of GM trees is great. Thus, even large forestry and
biotechnology companies are collaborating in projects such as ArborGen 28. However,
investing millions of dollars in this field is risky, and only deemed acceptable since
patent protection provides a temporary monopoly over new products, enabling
companies with the leading technology to dominate their sector. This has raised
concern amongst NGOs, who fear poorer growers will be unable to afford increased
capital expenditure, and thus have restricted access to the advantages of GM. The FSC
acknowledge this anxiety29. However, justifications for sharing of intellectual
property will be very difficult, and out-of-line with the increasing harmonisation of
global patent protection.
However, those pursuing GM technology argue that the higher cost of GM-trees is a
demonstration that the trees have additional value; growers will only purchase new
products if the additional value is worth the higher price. For example, a traditionally
bred hybrid maize seed is purchased by most U.S. farmers since it generates more
income, justifying the extra initial expenditure (McHughen 2000, p.192). This is
despite having to buy new seed each season. In contrast, the GM tomato, FlavrSavrTM, failed because it was too expensive and the flavour did not warrant consumers
spending the extra money (McHughen 2000, p.257-258). However, many small
growers, especially in developing countries, cannot afford capital outlay. As
illustrated by the Green revolution, additional costs favour larger growers. However,
this issue is not specific to GM, and it would be wrong to consider GM in isolation.
If we consider current practice, many growers already purchase their seed or seedlings
from specialist growers; in vitro generated clones and advanced breeding programmes
are beyond the scale of all but large forestry companies or specialist nurseries. If
foresters wish to plant improved varieties, invariably they buy from these suppliers,
since their access to improved varieties is already restricted, regardless of whether the
product is GM. Although certification schemes make specific references to using local
provenances where appropriate (PEFC 1998 4.2b; FSC 2000a 9.2), the onus is on
genetic diversity. Reference is not made to restrictive or monopolised access to
quality seed.
Certification is espoused as a means of ensuring socially responsible and sustainable
forestry. Yet critics have noted that becoming certified imposes additional costs upon
growers (Centero 1998). This additional expenditure, particularly that of the FSC
system, is seen by some to exclude small growers (Counsell 1996), especially in
developing countries (Banahene 2000). In a market increasingly concerned with a
reliable supply of a standardised product, certification makes it even more difficult for
small growers to gain access to markets (Counsell 1996). Some have considered a
major driving force behind certification to be large companies intent on expanding
their market share (Counsell 1996). This may explain why 66% of forests certified
under FSC guidelines have been by large industrial enterprises (Thornber 1999).
Although the certifiers have acknowledged the difficulties faced by small growers,
28
A venture between the forestry companies, International Paper, Westvaco and Fletcher Challenge,
and the biotechnology research company Genesis Research and Development.
29
“Restricted or monopolistic access to advantages, arising from high costs or limited availability of
GMO trees.” (FSC 1999a).
23
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
and have tried to develop group systems, the additional expense and limited supply of
certifications is restrictive.
3.viii. Reduced biodiversity from sterile trees
Due to the potentially negative effects of gene flow, sterility may be required for the
release of GM trees (English Nature 2000). The ecological impacts of large sterile
plantations has raised concerns (Dr George McGavin quoted in Tickell & Clover
2000) over reduced biodiversity. The FSC is specifically concerned about the
“Reduced biodiversity of organisms dependent on flowers and fruits, arising from use
of sterile GMOs” (FSC 1999a). Moreover, the FSC has doubts over the ability of trees
engineered for sterility to prevent gene flow to native plants30.
Engineered sterility is seen mainly as a risk reduction measure to minimise negative
effects of transgene flow and genetic erosion. However, sterility can offer other
benefits. Reproductive growth requires between 15% and 30% of a trees energy
(Owusu 1999). Thus, suppression of reproductive tissues could channel more
resources into vegetative growth and thus could greatly increase productivity.
Furthermore, it could reduce airborne allergens.
Sterility can be conferred in two ways. The first involves the suppression of the floral
genes that are essential to produce fertile gametes. This can be achieved through
either antisense suppression of gene expression31 or homology-dependent gene
silencing32. The principal disadvantage of these approaches is that native genes or
highly homologous equivalents are needed. This greatly increases the research time
and expense of modification. Furthermore, floral development is very complex, and
thus redundancy would have to be built into the system in order to ensure stability
throughout a plant’s life, and would require many genes to be used. For example,
LEAFY (LFY) in Arabidopsis controls a developmental switch to convert lateral
shoots into flowers (Weigel & Nilsson 1995). The main stem must acquire
competence to respond to LFY, and this capability increases during the life cycle
(Weigel & Nilsson 1995). Thus, genes prior to LFY control LFY expression, and
include promotors of flowering such as COSTANS and inhibitors of flowering such
as TERMINAL FLOWER. Research using PTFL, a poplar LFY homologue, indicates
that these promotors and inhibitors are in turn governed by a complex system of genes
that respond to day-length (Rottmann et al. 2000). Moreover, genes downstream of
LFY control precise floral organ development (Coen & Meyerowitz 1991). By
targeting different genes in this complex system redundancy may be ensured.
Suppression of floral genes is attractive for modification since fertility is impaired at
various stages of floral differentiation (Melian & Strauss 1997), which enables
selective sterility to be generated in tissue-specific regions. For example, modifying
structural or catalytic proteins essential for pollen formation could generate male
sterility. Whilst safe-guarding against gene flow via pollen, breeders could still cross
female flowers with pollen producing trees. However, such modifications of pollen
“Dispersal of transgenes to wild or weed populations, with potentially negative impacts, from nonsterile GMO trees, or from those with incomplete or unstable sterility” (FSC 1999a).
31
An inverse copy of the gene is inserted into the genome, the transcribed RNA of which binds with
the transcribed RNA of the target gene, thus negating its activity.
32
Co-suppression of existing floral regulatory genes is achieved due to the insertion of an additional
copy of the gene.
30
24
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
producing genes may not enhance vegetative growth, because expression is late in
floral development. Moreover, the problems of seed production and gene flow via
seed still exist, and the FSC is specifically concerned about partial sterility that does
not entirely prevent gene flow (FSC 1999a).
The second means of generating sterile trees would be through the expression of
cytotoxin genes in a floral tissue-specific fashion. This would disrupt or ablate organspecific tissues and since early and frequent floral-specific expression, floral homeotic
gene promotors are probably best suited for engineering complete sterility, whilst
enhancing growth (Meilan & Strauss 1997). However, occurrences of instability in
transgene expression have been reported (Denis et al. 1993), and it is these instances
that concern ecologists and the FSC about transgene spread. Trees remain in situ for
many years, and are seldom closely monitored. A breakdown of sterility could go
unnoticed for many years and allow GM genes to escape to wild populations.
If sterility is an important aspect of gene containment for regulatory and certificatory
purposes, it is critical to demonstrate that sterility is maintained under a range of
conditions and development stages. This requires non-contained field trials. It will
take many more years of work to develop guaranteed sterility systems (Strauss
2000a). Until then, existing sterility systems will be a risk reduction measure, and
require an acceptance of small transgene releases. However, the problems of timescale, massive pollen releases and the rarity of the breakdown in sterility makes
monitoring difficult and costly. Coping with a breakdown in sterility and the potential
consequences of transgene releases could be impossible. However, equivalence must
be invoked when considering the ecological aspects of sterile plantations. If the
technology is regulated properly and used with consideration, there is no reason to
expect a negative consequence of failed sterility transgenes. Furthermore, it is
unlikely the consequences of failed sterility will be as dramatic as those described for
Pinus radiata introduction (Cronk & Fuller 1995).
Currently, large plantations of exotics are certified. The productive areas of these
forests are often highly effect environments, with a biological composition radically
different to the wild systems they replace (Peterken 1992). Certification systems
acknowledge the detrimental impacts of exotic species, but agree the increased yield
from non-natives justifies their use. Thus they aim to ensure ecosystem management
to maximise beneficial activities and minimise adverse impacts. Equally, these
ecosystem management practices could be applied to sterile trees, since the potential
for increased wood production is great and certification systems could justify greater
proportions of the forest dedicated to ecologically beneficial practices. GM is likely to
be used with exotic species in short-rotation, commercial plantations (Griffin 1996;
3C Associates 2000; Strauss 2000a). The ablation of reproductive organs, and
consequently the loss of reproductive food matter to organisms in these plantations,
would represent only a small impact when contrasted to those already imposed
through the use of exotics. The very reason exotics grow so prolifically is thought to
be their unpalatablity to a significant number of pests (Speight 1989).
25
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
3.ix. General concerns
The FSCs concern over “Reduced adaptability to environmental stresses, changes to
interaction with other organisms, and increased weediness or invasiveness, in GMO
trees with new features” (FSC 1999a) encapsulates all their previous points.
Reference to the preceding sections should be made to discuss these specific issues.
However, treating such issues as disparate overlooks the potential problem that these
factors may compound and interact. The resultant gestalt could be unpredictable and
pose potential problems.
4. Evaluating the risks
4.i. Predictability and instability
Although not expressly voiced by certification systems, the unpredictability of genetic
transformation has raised concerns in the scientific community. This is because the
“Insertion of a novel gene can have a collateral impact on the rest of a hosts genome,
resulting in unintended side effects” (Owusu 1999). New genes that could conceivably
disrupt the metabolism of an organism will usually produce transgenics that are lethal.
However, experience with maize showed that a cytoplasmic male-sterility factor led
to the breakdown of resistance to the rust fungus Bipolaris maydis (Levings 1990).
Although the technology used in this example is dated, genetic instability could
produce many unintended effects that only manifest themselves years after
deployment. The vast majority of transgenes are stable but there have been instances
of instability, including altered patterns of gene expression (van der Hoeven et al.
1992) and the failure of engineered sterility (Denis et al. 1993).
Instability may be induced by high temperatures (Broer et al. 1992; Meyer et al. 1992;
Walter et al. 1992), which are thought to alter methylation (Meyer et al. 1992). This
illustrates an important principle. Since many genes are environmentally and
developmentally regulated, the physiological state of plants can have an important
effect on transgene expression, thus, the risks of collateral alterations to stressactivated genes “cannot be anticipated until the stress response is actually triggered”
(Owusu 1999). This is of special import for forest trees because they are exposed to
environmental fluctuations for much longer periods than agricultural crops. Moreover,
a time lag could make the problems of instability more acute because the widespread
planting of a particular cultivar could be spaced over many years. A greater time
frame also has a bearing on the uncertain risk of novel gene mutation.
However, some have pointed out that in 1999 alone GM crops covered 45 million
hectares (100 million acres) in North America, and there are no documented dramatic
or adverse or unexpected effects from any of these plants (McHughen 2000, p.190).
Studies with poplars have shown stable gene expression for several years (Strauss,
pers. comm., 2000). The rigorous testing and regulatory policies prior to commercial
GMO release are considered effectively to remove unstable cultivars. Extensive
quantities of data are gathered in trails, and the quantified risks satisfy assessors and
government legislators, although they may not allay the concerns of some groups who
question the independence of assessors. Simple steps could also be taken to lessen the
potential pitfalls of instability. Just as for risk aversion in clonal plantations, a variety
of transformants could be planted. These could have a number of transgenic insertions
26
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
with multiple copies of the desired transgenes (Burdon 1999). Again the debate
centres on risk analysis, and as such should focus on the specific GM trait.
It is important to note that “all living things are subject to natural genetic instability”
(McHughen 2000, p.189). Pieces of DNA called transposable elements can move
directly from one chromosome site to another (Fedoroff 1992), multiply, and
occasionally re-arrange neighbouring DNA sequences (Alberts et al. 1989). They are
thought to make up 10% of higher eukaryote genomes, and can affect gene regulation
(Alberts et al. 1989). Such inherent instability is in present in all plants. Genetic
changes induced by transposable elements are accommodated by phenotypic
plasticity. As such, GM would not present any new phenomenon of instability.
4.ii. Risk assessment
Some FSC supporters are against the deployment of GMOs33 (Greenpeace 2000),
whilst other supporters call for a moratorium (Owusu 1999). The spectrum of
potential GM applications has lead many bodies to recommend that “regulators
should explore the pros and cons of adopting a more explicit risk / benefit
assessment” (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999). Risk assessment can be
controversial, reflecting the important role that both science and judgement play in
drawing conclusions about the likelihood of effects on human well-being and the
environment; contention often arises from incomplete knowledge.
To make an effective risk management decision, stakeholders need to know what
potential harm a situation poses and how great is the likelihood that this harm will be
realised. Each application should be examined in isolation; however, the hazards of
GM cannot be properly evaluated (Apel 2000). While the extent of exposure can be
estimated, there are no responses to exposure. Contemporary risk models must thus
make assumptions (Burdon 1999), and herein lie the seeds of dispute. Those against
GM extol the precautionary principle34 based on our lack of knowledge, whilst others
maintain negative assertions can never be proven, and GMO deployment should be
based on comparisons with current practices. This has lead some to argue that the
“anti-biotechnology contingent has made the lack of scientific knowledge part of a
strongly subjective standard of risk assessment, and coupled it with a confirmation
bias35” (Apel 2000). Countering this, some of the scientific community believe “... the
simple principle of genetic modification spells ecological disaster. There are no ways
of quantifying the risks... ...The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic
modification.” (Narang 2000). This dichotomy of views may rest with philosophical
beliefs surrounding ‘natural’ procedures and the role of multi-nationals in dictating
much of biotechnology research in forestry. As such societal interests play a strong
role in moulding the perceptions of GM. Reconciling these different perspectives may
be very difficult.
Proving GM is non-hazardous requires a negative proof, and science cannot
corroborate such assertions. A logical approach is to compare the risks of the specific
“genetically modified organisms must not be released into the environment”
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically” (Wingspread Consensus Statement on the Precautionary Principle 1999).
35
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to discriminate on what
confirms one's beliefs.
33
34
27
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
product in question with currently acceptable risks. However, the notion of
substantive equivalence is not often popular with official bodies because it may
expose existing practices as flawed. Yet equivalence is the rational scientific approach
(McHughen 2000). As such, an examination of currently acceptable practice for
certified forests should reveal comparable requirements for the certification of GM
forests.
One of the greatest justifications of anti-GM lobbyists are the potential impacts of
GM. Many thus advocate the precautionary principle, at least until the variables are
known and a risk assessment can be completed. Yet, consider PEFC prescriptions:
“acidification could be controlled by liming. The short term and long term ecological
impacts of large scale liming are not fully evaluated” (C5.3, PEFC Sweden, Annex 4,
1999). Liming to combat acidification is considered acceptable, despite its impacts not
being fully evaluated. This is contrary to the precautionary principle. Many could
draw a parallel between accepted practices such as these and the certification of GM.
Indeed, practices considered by some to be very damaging to the environment are
justified by increased harvest; “the removal of tops and branches and rotten round
wood as wood energy is a supplementary harvest. To compensate for nutrient loss,
ashes from wood burning shall be brought back to the forest or compensating
fertilising shall be done according to special rules” (Criterion 3:2, PEFC Sweden
Annex 5, 1999). Again a value judgement of cost and benefit has been made after
assessing potential risks. This would argue that GM applications could be examined
on a case by case basis, rather than imposing an outright ban. That is, “focus on the
risks of the product, not the process”, (McHughen 2000, p.159) just as in
conventional forestry.
Since the application of GM cannot be analysed by conventional risk assessment
approaches, alternative methods must be carried out. This should be based on
scientific fact and substantive equivalence. Because the philosophical bent of
individuals is relevant, assessors should be “cognisant and transparent36”, combining
social awareness with the tenets of rigorous science (Farnham et al. 2000). This
ensures a more realistic elucidation and quantification of the trade-offs faced. In order
to ensure such deductive distinctions are as objective as possible, knowledge should
be integrated through discussion and debate. Nevertheless, it is important to note that
“in every study so far, no evidence has been found that GM crops present special
risks. The types of risk are exactly the same as for crops modified by the classical
plant-breeding methods" (Cook 2000).
If certification systems are to accept GMOs, they have two options. They could accept
the judgement of the national systems that currently assess applications for GMO
release. This would be very simple, but the differences between national systems
could be contentious; some nations are seen as having more rigorous standards than
others. However, if certifiers are not satisfied with the stringency of a national system
they could impose requirements to meet their own, or another countries, more
demanding criteria. Given that it is likely GMO plantations will first appear in
developing countries (Owusu 1999), and that national legislation and its
implementation may be lacking, it is possible that certification represents the only
“What distinguishes the cognisant and transparent scientist is simply a greater understanding of the
geography of the modern world of science and policy”.(Farnham et al. 2000).
36
28
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
means of ensuring transgenic releases are safe. As such, it is important for certifiers to
recognise that despite never being able to quantify precisely the risks of GM, it is
important for them to examine their policies and develop a more sophisticated and
realistic approach to the certification of GMOs. Moreover, since it has been shown
that silencing of one transgene by another may occur (Matzke & Matzke 1991),
widespread monitoring of GMOs has been proposed (Rogers & Parkes 1995).
Certification systems could be in a unique position to ensure this monitoring is carried
out on a large scale.
As always, it is the application and specifics of the GMO which should be assessed.
Risk analysis is very difficult since all variables cannot be known. If GM is to be
accepted this will require a flexible certification system. In light of the current
permitted practices, from a rational perspective, many applications of GM could be
certified, even without risk assessment. Having said this, it is important to note that
this is considering GM applications on a case-by-case basis.
29
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
5. Conclusions (The power of politics: the business of
certification)
Certification was conceived well before the launch of the FSC, but the Rio Summit of
1992 provided an impetus for its expansion (EFI 2000). Initial growth was rapid, but
some critics consider that certification will plateau; companies who can easily comply
with certification criteria, recognising the potential market benefits, will probably
undertake certification, whilst others will wait and assess the repercussions. From a
business perspective, if certified companies do not receive the benefits touted by
certification, it is not logical to disrupt existing procedures and undertake expensive
audits. For example, most pulp and paper companies are not interested in FSC
certification because demand is satisfied by ISO certification (von Maltitz 2000).
Figures for a plateau in certification are inconclusive. In March 1999, 15 million
hectares were FSC-certified world-wide (FSC 1999e). Eighteen months later this
figure has risen to 17.7 million hectares (FSC 2000e). However, most FSC
certifications are of state-owned forests or large companies whose holdings are
already almost compatible with FSC criteria (e.g. Assidomän).
Since certification is partly a marketing exercise, it is important to develop a credible
brand37 that is widely recognised. Developing consumer recognition requires, among
other things, a ‘threshold volume’ of products on sale. If this volume of products is
available, certification will have a market presence and should take-off. The influence
of buyers-groups, both in exercising a preference for certified timber, and in
communicating that preference to their customers, will be instrumental in market
development. It is likely retailers and traders will play a key role in promoting
certification. However, without the momentum that industry could supply, existing
certification mechanisms may become redundant because they do not achieve this
market presence.
Despite its scale, the FSC are struggling to woo industrial newcomers. This is because
industry generally perceives the FSC criteria as rigid, and instead prefer the more
‘flexible’, particularly regional, systems. For example, Rayonier New Zealand
recently relinquished FSC certification after two years, but maintained ISO
certification and supports the regional VEP system (Hunt 1999). Moreover, in the
U.S., Rayonier has over 500,000 ha of land under the AF & PA’s SFI. This is thought
to be because many in the forestry industry believe the FSC system to be unsuited to
plantation forestry; the FSC started largely as a response to natural forest exploitation
and is perceived by the forest industry as having a “known dislike of plantations and
preference for returning land to natural forest” (Pine 1999).
As noted, FSC certification appeals primarily to timber forestry companies. Big pulp
and paper companies such as SAPPI USA, after undertaking ISO certification, are
‘fence-sitting’ over FSC certification, monitoring the impact of those companies
already FSC-certified (Jeremy Brawner, pers. comm.). The FSC recognise this. For
example, the percentage composition of virgin wood fibre in paper was reduced from
37
The backing the FSC receives from prominent environmental NGOs ensures credibility with the
public.
30
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
70% to 30% “to make FSC market claims more accessible to industries” (FSC
2000d). The FSC also modified their definition of GMOs, which now permits clones
and some forms of advanced breeding technology (FSC 1999a).
The FSC is the only major certification system to reject the use of GM in trees. Many
leaders in the forestry industry are examining the potential of GM, but recognise the
anti-GM stance of the FSC and the NGOs which support and help finance the FSC.
These NGOs are thought to hold considerable sway over policies, and provide ‘green
credentials’ and limited funding to the FSC. For the FSC this represents a dilemma.
All certification bodies need industrial backing to expand their brand and market
penetration, and thus require industrial certifications. However, if the FSC were to
reverse its no-GM policy, it may loose important NGO support and consequently its
credibility as an eco-friendly label. GM thus, unfortunately, becomes a political
concern rather than a rational assessment of economic, social or environmental value.
As noted, many of the concerns about GM expressed by the FSC and NGOs (FSC
2000a, Greenpeace 2000, Soil Association 2000, Owusu 1999) are equivalent to
existing procedures which are permitted by FSC criteria. However, it is probable the
FSC will not permit GM in the near future, although GM-plantations are predicted to
develop in 5 – 10 years. Industrial forestry companies interested in the certification of
GM products will continue to pursue ISO and other forms of certification, such as
PEFC and the AF & PAs’ SFI, rather than FSC. From the examples illustrated
throughout the paper, the likelihood of GMOs being certified will be based more on
conceptions of ‘natural’ than the impact on the environment.
For companies not interested in GM the situation is different. One of the prime
motivations for businesses becoming certified are marketing benefits. AssiDomän
were one of the first companies to become certified, and currently over 2.4 million
hectares (5.4 million acres), or 26% of Swedish FSC-certified forest, are FSCcertified (FSC 2000c). AssiDomän supply developed markets composed of informed,
discerning consumers, and operate mostly in slow-growing boreal forests. GM in
boreal conditions would offer no real advantages (3c Associates 2000, Strauss 2000a,
Griffin 1996) because growth is slow, and AssiDomän have chosen not to pursue GM.
Yet AssiDomän are the largest Swedish paper products company and in the future
may suffer increased competition from GM short rotation plantations. Since long
rotation forests probably cannot partake in the potential benefits of GM, certification
may offer a means of remaining competitive. The market advantage conferred by FSC
certification could exclude competitors from counties where GM could offer
competitive advantages.
31
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
6. Acronyms
AF&PA
CSA
DNA
DSS
EMS
FSC
GM
GMO
ISO
ITTO
LEI
MAS
NGO
PEFC
QTL
RNA
SFI
SFM
TFAP
UKWAS
VEP
WWF
American Forest and Paper Association
Canadian Standards Association
deoxyribonucleic acid
Decision Support System
Environmental Management Systems
Forest Stewardship Council
genetic modification
genetically modified organism
International Standards Organisation
International Tropical Timber Organisation
Lambaga Ekolabel Indonesia
marker assisted selection
non-governmental organisation
Pan-European Forestry Council
quantitative trait loci
ribonucleic acid
Sustainable Forestry Initiative
sustainable forest management
Tropical Forest Action Plan
UK Woodland Assurance Scheme
Verification of Environmental Performance
Worldwide Fund for Nature
7. Acknowledgements
Dr. Malcolm Campbell for his time, infectious enthusiasm and ‘endless’ knowledge
Dr. Stephen Harris for his lengthy deliberations and welcome advice
Dr. Simon Pryor for his time and thoughts
Those in industry who wish to remain anonymous yet provided so many valuable
insights
Jeremy Brawner for his consideration and friendship
Those who contributed to a global understanding: John Scotcher (South Africa),
Simon Southerton, Dr. Peter Kanowski, Dr. Christine Dean (Australia),
Dr. Steve McKeand and Dr. Steve Strauss (US), and Dr. Rod Griffin (UK).
32
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
8. References
3C Associates (2000). If you go down to the woods today... Genetic Engineering in
Forestry: A business briefing for Pulp and Paper Professionals, 3C Associates
Ltd. www.conserve.com
AF&PA (2000) 2000 edition sustainable forestry initiative standard, American Forest
& Paper Association. www.afandpa.org/forestry/sfi/standards-fnl.pdf
Alberts, B., Bray, D., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K. & Watson, J.D. (1989)
Molecular Biology of the Cell. (2nd ed). Garland Publishing, Inc. New York &
London.
Allen, N. (1999) Fish, Farms and Food. The Independent. August 3rd, 1999, London.
Ammann, K. (1999) (ed.) Methods for risk assessment in transgenic plants: 1ii
ecological risks and prospects of transgenic plants. Birchauser Verlag, Basel.
Apel, A. (2000) Risk assessment and confirmation bias. Message #724, Archived at
www.agbioview.listbot.com, AgBioView
Banahene, A.M. (2000) President of the Ghana Timber Millers Association – lecture
given at the Oxford Forestry Institute, March 2000.
Bass, S. & Simula, M. (1999) Independent certification/verification of forest
management. Background paper for World Bank/ WWF Alliance Workshop,
Washington, DC, USA. 8–9 November 1999. 32 p.
Baucher, M., Monties, B., van Montagu, M. & Boerjan, W. (1998) Biosynthesis and
genetic engineering of lignin. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 17: 125-197.
Bauer, L.S. (1997) Fibre farming with insecticidal trees. Journal of Forestry 95: 2023.
Booker, R.E. & Sell, J. (1998) The nanostructure of the cell wall of softwoods and its
functions in a living tree. Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff 56: 1-8.
Brawner, J. T. Personal communication. August 4th 2000. Central America & Mexico
Coniferous Resources Forest Tree Improvement Co-operative (CAMCORE),
North Carolina State University.
Broer, I., Drodge, W., Hillemann, D., Neumann, K., Walter, C. & Puhler, A. (1992)
Instability of herbicide resistance in transgenic suspension cultures and
plants. Pp 230-236. In: Proceedings of the second international symposium on
biosafety results of field tests of genetically modified plants and organisms.
Casper, R. & Landsmann, J. (eds.). Goslar. Braunschweig: BBA.
Bryngelsson, T., Gustafsson, M., Green, B. & Lind, S. (1988) Uptake of host DNA by
the parasitic fungus Plasmodium brassicae. Physiological Molecular Plant
Pathology 33: 163-171.
Burdon, R.D. (1999) Risk-management issues for genetically modified forest trees.
New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 29: 375-390.
Cantley, M. (1998) Seeds of self-destruction. Financial Times of 16th December 1998.
Carlson, T.A. & Chelm, B.K. (1986) Apparent eukaryotic origin of glutamine
synthase II from the bacterium Bradyrhizobium japonicum. Nature 322: 568570.
Centero, (1998) Forest Management Certification.
www.csf.colorado.edu/elan/apr98/0069.html
Chevre, A-M., Eber, F., Baranger, A., Hureau, G., Barret, P., Picault, H. & Renard,
M. (1998) Characterisation of backcross generations obtained under field
condition from oilseed rape-wild radish F1 interspecific hybrids: an
assessment of transgene dispersal. Theoretical & Applied Genetics 97: 90-98.
33
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
Chilvers, G.A. & Burdon, J.J. (1983) Further studies on a native Australian eucalypt
forest invaded by exotic pines. Oecologia 59: 239-245.
Coen, E.S. & Meyerowitz, E.M. (1991) The war of the whorls: genetic interactions
controlling flower development. Nature 353: 31-37.
Colchester, M. (1990) The International Tropical Timber Organization: Kill or Cure
for the Rainforests? Ecologist 20: 166 (1990).
Concar, D. (1999) A question of breeding. New Scientist (27/02/99).
Cook, J.R (2000) Professor of plant pathology at Washington State University,
Member of America's National Academy of Sciences. Interviewed by
Readers’ Digest. www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2000/09/think_gm.html
Cooper, K. (1999) Conservation Director of the Wildlife and Environmental Society
of South Africa. In: Confidential First Draft Report to WWF-International
Forests & Trade Initiative on the Potential for a Forest and Trade Network in
South Africa. Murphy, D.F, New Academy of Business, 10 December 1999.
Counsell, S. (1996) The role of large corporations in the development of forest
certification and product labelling schemes: with special reference on the
European Union eco-label and the Forest Stewardship Council. MSc thesis,
University of Oxford.
Counsell, S. (1999) Quoted in Plantation leader quits FSC in New Zealand. Pine
28: 5.
Crawley, M.J., Hails, R.H., Rees, M., Khon, D. & Buxton, J. (1993) Ecology of
transgenic rape in natural habitats. Nature 363: 620-623.
Cronk, Q.C.B. & Fuller, J.L. (1995) Plant invaders: the threat to natural ecosystems.
Chapman & Hall, London.
Dale, P.J. (1994) The impact of hybrids between genetically modified crop plants and
their related species: general considerations. Molecular Ecology 3: 31-36.
Denis, M., Delbourme, R., Gourret, J-P., Mariani, C. & Renard, M. (1993).
Expression of engineered nuclear male sterility in Brassica napus. Plant
Physiology 101: 1295-1304.
Diamond, J. (1997) Guns, germs and steel: the fates of human societies. W.W.
Norton, New York. 480p.
Dickson, R. & Walker, J. (1997) Pines, growing commodities or designer trees.
Commonwealth Forestry Review 76: 273-279.
DiFazio, S.P., Leonardi, S., Cheng, S. & Strauss, S.H. (1998). Assessing potential
risks of transgene escape from fiber plantations.
www.fsl.orst.edu/tgerc/bcpcpres.doc
Dinus, R.J. & Tuskan, G.A (1997) Integration of molecular & classical genetics: a
synergistic approach to tree improvement. In: Micropropagation, genetic
engineering and molecular biology of Poplus. Klopfenstein, N.B., Chun,
Y.W., Kim, M.S., Ahuja, M.R. (eds.), Dillon, M.C., Carman, R.C., Eskew,
L.G. (tech. eds.). General technical report RM-GTR-297. Fort Collins, CO. US
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Pp.220-235.
Doebley, J., Stec, A. & Hubbard, L. (1997) The evolution of apical dominance in
maize. Nature 386: 485-488.
Dunleavy, M.W. (1993) The Limits of Free Trade: Sovereignty, Environmental
Protection and NAFTA. University of Toronto Faculty Law Review 204: 226.
Ebinuma, H., Sugita, K., Matsunaga, E. & Yamakado, M. (1997) Selection of markerfree transgenic plants using the isopentenyl transferase gene. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 94: 2117-2121.
34
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
EFI (2000) The history and development of certification. Certification Information
Service, European Forest Institute.
http://www.efi.fi/cis/english/background/history.html
Ellstrand, N.C. (1992) Gene flow by pollen: implications for plant conservation
genetics. Oikos 63: 77-86.
Ellstrand, N.C., Prentice, H.C. & Hancock, J.F. (1999) Gene flow and introgression
from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annual Review of Ecology
& Systematics 30: 539-563.
English Nature (2000). Position statement on genetically modified organisms. English
Nature, February 2000.
http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/statement.asp?ID=14
Evans, B. (1996) Technical and scientific elements of forest management certification
process. Conference on economic, social and political issues in certification of
forest management. Malaysia, May 12 - 16, 1996.
EU (1990) Council Directive of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms (90/220/EEC). Official
Journal of the European Communities - 8.5.90 - Page No L 117/15
http://biosafety.ihe.be/GB/Dir.Eur.GB/Del.Rel./90.220/TC.html
EU (1991) Annex ii, EU-Regulation "Organic Agriculture" 2092/91/EEC
http://www.prolink.de/~hps/organic/annex.html
FAO (2000a) Certification and forest product labelling: a review. 18th Session of the
Asia Pacific Forestry Commission, Noosaville, Queensland, Australia, 15-19
May 2000. www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X5967E.html
FAO (2000b) Country Profile of Forestry: New Zealand, FAO 2000.
www.fao.org/forestry/fo/country/index.jsp?geo_id=124&lang_id=1
Farnham, P., Dean, C.A. & Plummer, M.L. (2000) Science in Service to Society:
Matching Research to Society’s Needs. Paper given at XXI IUFRO World
Congress, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7-12 August 2000.
Federoff, N.V. (1992) Maize transposable elements: a story in four parts. In: The
Dynamic Genome: Barbra McClintock’s ideas in the century of genetics. pp.
389-415. (eds. Federoff, N.V. & Botstein, D.) Cold Spring Harbour
Laboratory Press.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. McBride, W.D., Klotz-Ingram, C., Jans, S. & Brooks, N.
(2000) Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management in U.S.
Agriculture. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Agricultural Economic Report No. 786 (AER-786). April 2000.
Franke, R., McMichael, C.M., Meyer, K., Shirley, A.M., Cusumano, J.C. and
Chapple, C. (2000) Modified lignin in tobacco and poplar plants overexpressing the Arabidopsis gene encoding ferulate 5-hydroxylase. The Plant
Journal 22: 223-234.
FoE (1992) The International Tropical Timber Agreement; conserving the forests or
chainsaw charter? Friends of the Earth and World Rainforest Movement.
FSC (1997) Swedish FSC standard for forest certification. Forest Stewardship
Council for Sweden, 24 September 1997.
FSC (1999a) Genetically modified organisms: draft interpretations for FSC. E-mail,
Forest Stewardship Council for the United Kingdom, October 1999.
www.fsc.orst.edu/tgerc/FES-response-1099.doc
FSC (1999b) Forest management standard for the United Kingdom. Endorsed
Standard, Forest Stewardship Council for the United Kingdom, October 1999.
35
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
FSC (1999c) GMOs: Genetically Modified Organisms: Draft Position for FSC Forest
Stewardship Council, 10th March 1999.
FSC (1999d) Report on Small Businesses and Certification. Forestry Stewardship
Council for the United Kingdom. www.fsc-uk.demon.co.uk/
FSC (1999e) FSC Newsletter, Issue 9 March/April 1999FSC.
www.fscoax.org/principal.htm
FSC (1999f) Draft minutes of the Forest Stewardship Council General Assembly.
Oxaca, Mexico, 24-25 June 1999.
www.fscoax.org/html/noframes/assembley_general/fscgamin.htm
(18.07.2000)
FSC (2000a) FSC Principals and Criteria Document 1.2, Forest Stewardship Council,
A.C., revised February 2000.
FSC (2000b) Number of certified acres in the United States, Forestry Stewardship
Council USA. www.fscus.org/results_impact/certified_acres-us.html
FSC (2000c) Certified forests, Forest Stewardship Council, Sweden. www.fscsverige.org
FSC (2000d) FSC board decides on percentage claims policy. FSC-UK Newsletter,
16th February 2000. www.fsc-uk.demon.co.uk/press.html
FSC (2000e) Forests certified by FSC-accredited certification bodies, DOC. 5.3.3, 1
August 2000 www.fscoax.org/principal.htm
Ghazali, B.H. & Simula, M. (1994). Certification for all timber and timber products.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
Gliddon, C. (1994) The impacts of hybrids between genetically modified plants and
their related species: biological models and theoretical perspectives.
Molecular Ecology 3: 41-44.
Gray, A.J. & Raybould, A.F. (1998) Reducing transgene escape routes. Nature 392:
653-654
Grayson, A.J. & Maynard, W.B. (1997) The worlds forests – Rio+5: International
initiatives towards sustainable management Commonwealth Forestry
Association, Oxford.
Greenpeace (2000) http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/ 02/08/2000
Griffin, R. (1996) Genetically modified trees – the plantations of the future or an
expensive distraction? Commonwealth Forestry Review 75: 169-175.
Gunneberg, B. (2000) Personal Communication, PEFCC General Secretary.
Helgason, E., Økstad, O.A., Caugant, D.A., Johansen, H.A., Fouet, A., Mock, M.,
Hegna, I. & Kolstø, A-B. (2000) Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and
Bacillus thuringiensis One Species on the Basis of Genetic Evidence. Applied
and Environmental Microbiology 66: 2627-2630.
Halpin, C., Knight, M.E., Foxon, G.A., Campbell, M.M., Boudet, A.M., Boon, J.J.,
Chabbert, B., Tollier, M-T & Schuch, W. (1994) Manipulation of lignin
quality by down regulation of cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase Plant Journal
6: 339-350.
Hanson, L.C. & Obrycki, J.J. (2000) Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen:
lethal effects on the monarch butterfly. Oecologia. Published online: 19
August 2000. link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00442/contents/00/00502/
Humphries, D. (2000) Deforestation: defining the issue. Lecture held at the Oxford
Forestry Institute. April 2000.
Hunt, S. (1999) Rayonier Confirms ‘no FSC’. Pine Magazine 28: 3.
36
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
Istock, C.A. (1991) Genetic exchange and genetic stability in bacterial populations.
In: Assessing Ecological Risks of Biotechnology, Ginzburg, L.R. (ed.),
Butterworth-Heinmann, Boston. Pp. 123-149.
James, R.R., DiFazio, S.P., Brunner, A.M. & Strauss, S.S. (1998) Environmental
effects of genetically engineered woody biomass crops. Biomass & Bioenergy
14: 403-414.
Kanowski, P., Sinclair, D. & Freeman, B. (2000) Issues in Certification. ITTO
newsletter, Tropical Forest Update (Vol. 10 No.1).
www.itto.or.jp/newsletter/v10n1/0/html
Kelly, R. (2000) A matter of principles. Pine Magazine, 31: 36-38.
Kershen, L. (2000) The Concept Of Natural: Implications For Biotechnology
Regulation. Message #723, archived at agbioview.listbot.com AgBioView
Kiekens, J.P. (2000) Forest certification, Part II: impacts on forestry, trade and
consumer information. Engineered Wood Journal - Spring 2000 Edition.
http://sfcw.org/forest_certification_part2.htm
Kjellsson, G. (1996) (ed.) Assessment of transgenic plants: 1i pollination, genetransfer and population impacts. Birchauser Verlag, Basel.
Lapierre, C., Pollet, B., Petit-Conil, M., et al. (1999) Structural alteration of lignin in
transgenic poplars with depressed cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase of caffeic
acid O-methyl-transferase activity have an opposite impact on the efficiency of
industrial kraft pulping. Plant Physiology 119:153-163.
Lavigne, C. Manach, H., Guyard, C. & Gasquez, J. (1995). The cost of herbicide
resistance in white-chicory: ecological implications for its commercial
release. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 91: 1301-1308.
Levings, C.S. III. (1990) The Texas cytoplasm of maize: cytoplasmic male sterility
and disease susceptibility. Science 250: 942-947.
Losey, J.E., Raynor & Carter, M.E. (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae.
Nature 399: 214.
MTB (1999) Safeguarding competitiveness and sustainability of primary commodities
through EMS Malaysian Timber Bulletin 5 (6): 8-9.
MacKay, J.J., Liu, W.W., Whetton, R., Sederoff, R.R. & O’Malley, D.M. (1995)
Genetic analysis of cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase in loblolly pine: single
gene inheritance, molecular characterisation and evolution. Molecular &
General Genetics, 247: 537-545.
MacKay, J.J., O’Malley, D.M., Presnell, T., Booker, F.L., Campbell, M.M., Whetton,
R.W. & Sederoff, R.R. (1997) Inheritance, gene expression, and lignin
characterisation in a mutant pine deficient in cinnamyl alcohol
dehydrogenase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 94: 8255-8260.
MacKay, J.J., Presnell, T., Jameel, H., Taneda, H., O’Malley, D.M. & Sederoff, R.R.
(1999) Modified lignin and delignification with a cad-deficient loblolly pine
Holzforschung, 53: 403-410.
Mathews, J.H., & Campbell, M.M. (2000) The advantages & disadvantages of the
application of genetic engineering to forest trees – a discussion. Forestry 73:
371-380.
Matzke, M.A. & Matzke, A.J.M. (1991) Differential activation and methylation of a
transgene in plants by two suppresser loci containing homologous sequences.
Plant Molecular Biology 16: 821-830.
McHughen, A. (2000) A consumer’s guide to GM food: from green genes to red
herrings. Oxford University Press Inc, New York.
37
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
Meilan, R. & Strauss, S.H. (1997) Poplar genetically engineered for reproductive
sterility and accelerated flowering. In: Micropropagation, genetic engineering
and molecular biology of Poplus. Klopfenstein, N.B., Chun, Y.W., Kim, M.S.,
Ahuja, M.R. (eds.), Dillon, M.C., Carman, R.C., Eskew, L.G. (tech. eds.).
General technical report RM-GTR-297. Fort Collins, CO. US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp.212-219.
Meyer, P., Linn, F., Heidmann, I., Meyer, Z.A., Niedenhof, I. & Saedler, H. (1992)
Endogenous and environmental factors influence 35S promoter methylation of
a maize A1 gene construct in transgenic petunia and its colour phenotype.
Molecular and General Genetics 231: 345-352.
Moffat, A. (1996) Moving forest trees into the modern genetic era. Science 271: 760761.
Muhs, H.J. (1993) Policies, regulations and laws affecting clonal forestry. In: Clonal
Forestry II, Conservation and Application, Ahuja, M.R. & Libby, W.J. (eds.),
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Mullin, S.J. & Bertrand, S. (1998) Environmental release of forest trees in Canada –
potential benefits and assessments of biosafety. Forestry Chronicle 74: 203219.
Murphy, D.F (1999) Confidential First Draft Report to WWF-International Forests &
Trade Initiative on the Potential for a Forest and Trade Network in South
Africa. New Academy of Business, 10 December 1999.
Narang, H. (2000) Interview. Microbiologist and senior research associate at the
University of Leeds.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999) Genetically modified crops: the social and
ethical issues. Report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Nuffield
Foundation, 1999 www.nufield.org/bioethics/publication/pub0010805.html
National Academy of Sciences (1987) Introduction of recombinant DNA-engineered
organisms into the environment: key issues. National Research Council USA,
Washington D.C. 27p.
National Research Council (2000) Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science
and regulation. National Academy Press, USA, Washington, D.C. 230p.
ODCI (1999) The World Factbook 1999 -- New Zealand, Central Intelligence Agency,
USA, Nov-04-1999 www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/nz.html
Owusu, R.A. (1999) GM technology in the forest sector: a scoping study for the
WWF. www.panda.org/resources/publications/forest/gm-download.doc.
Patrick, K (2000) AF&PA and AFF mutually recognise sustainable forestry
programs, Pulp & Paper Online, 30th June 2000.
www.pulpandpaperonline.com/content/news/article.asp?DocOD={2D3B02B4
-4DD6-11D4-8C54-009027DE0829}&Bucket=Features
PEFC (1998) Pan European Operational Level Guidelines Lisbon 1998, Annex 4 to
the technical document, The Lisbon Resolutions, Pan European Forest
Certification. www.pefc.org/lisbon.htm
PEFC (1999) System for certification of forest operations and wood supply, Annex 2,
PEFC Sweden Council.
Peterken, G.F. (1992) Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern
Temperate Regions. Cambridge University Press.
Pimentel, D., Hunter, M.S., Largo, J.A., Efroymson, R.A., Landers, J.C., Mervis, F.T.,
McCarthy, C.A. & Boyd, A.F. (1989). Benefits and risks of genetic
engineering in agriculture. Bioscience 39: 606-613.
38
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., & Morrison, D. (1999). Environmental and
economic costs associated with non-indigenous species in the United States.
Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Pine (1999) Plantation leader quits FSC in New Zealand. Pine Magazine 28: 5.
Poore, D. (1989) No timber without trees: sustainability in the tropical forest.
Earthscan Publications, London, 1989.
Pullman, G., Cariney, J. & Peter, G. (1998) Clonal forestry and genetic engineering:
where we stand, future prospects and potential impacts on mill operations.
TAPPI Journal 8: 57-64.
Pulp & Paper (2000), Online Newsletter – www.puplandpaperonline.com. Volume 3
Issue 76 Thursday, August 10, 2000.
Radmacher, W. (1996) Gibberellin formation in micro-organisms. Plant Growth
Regulation 15: 303-314.
Raffa, K., Kleiner., Ellis, D. & McCown, B. (1997) Environmental risk assessment
and deployed strategies for genetically engineered insect-resistant Populus. In
Micropropagation, genetic engineering, and molecular biology of Populus. N.
Klopfenstein, Y.Chun, M.-S.Kim & Ahuja, M.R. (eds). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMGTR-279. USDA, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ralph, J., MacKay, J.J., Hatfield, R.D., O’Malley, D.M., Whetton, R.W. & Sederoff,
R.R. (1997) Abnormal lignin in a loblolly pine mutant. Science 277: 235-239.
Riemenschneider , D.E., Haissig, B.E., Sellmer, J., Fillatti, J.J. & Ahuja, M.R (1988)
Somatic cell genetics of woody plants Proc. IUFRO Working Party S2. 04-07,
held in Grosshansdorf, Germany, 10 – 13 Aug, 1987: 73-80.
Rissler, J & Mellon, R. (1996) The ecological risks of engineered crops. MIT Press.
Rogers, H.J. & Parkes, H.C. (1995). Transgenic plants & the environment. Journal of
Experimental Botany, 46: 467-488.
Rottmann, W.H., Meilan, R., Sheppard, L.A., Brunner, A.M., Skinner, J.S., Ma, C.,
Cheng, S., Jouanin, L., Pilate, G. & Strauss, S.H. (2000) Diverse effects of
overexpression of LEAFY and PTLF, a poplar (Populus) homologue of
LEAFY/FLORICAULA in transgenic poplar and Arabidopsis. The Plant
Journal 22: 235-245.
Roush, R. (1994). Managing pests and their resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis: can
transgenic crops be better than sprays? Biocontrol Science and Technology 4:
501-516.
Saxena, D., Flores, S. & Stotzky (1999) Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt
corn. Nature 402: 480.
Scheffler, J.A., Parkinson, R. & Dale, P.J. (1993). Frequency and distance of pollen
dispersal from transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Transgenic Research
2: 356-364.
Schmitt, J & Linder, C.R. (1994) Will escaped transgenes lead to ecological release?
Molecular Ecology 3: 71-74.
Sederoff, R.R & Stomp, A.M.(1993) DNA transfer in conifers. In: Ahuja, M.R. &
Libby, M.J. (eds.) Clonal Forestry 1. Springer-Verlag Berlin, pp. 241-254.
Shears, M. & Sheldon, A. (2000) Questionable conclusions from the latest Monarch
Studies. http://www.biotech-info.net/questionable_conclusions.html
Shultz, A., Wengenmayer, F., & Goodman H.M. (1990). Genetic engineering of
herbicide resistance in higher plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences
9: 1-15.
Small, E. (1984) Hybridization in the domesticated-weed-wild complex. pp 195-210
In: Plant Biosystematics, W. Grant, (ed.). Academic Press, Toronto.
39
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
Snow, A.A., Anderson, B. & Jorgenson, R.B. (1999) Costs of transgenic herbicide
resistance introgressed from Brassica napus into weedy B. napa. Molecular
Ecology 8: 605-615.
Soil Association (1998) Genetically modified organisms in forestry. Responsible
Forestry Programme Briefing Paper.
Somerville, C. (2000). The genetically modified organism conflict. Plant Physiology
123: 1201-1202.
Speight, M.R. & Wainhouse, D. (1989) Ecology and management of forest insects.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Speight, M.R., Hunter, M.D. & Watt, A.D. (1999) Ecology of insects: concepts and
applications. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Speight, M.R. & Wylie, F.R. (2001) Insect pests in tropical forests. CABI, 320pp. (In
press.)
Strauss, S.H (1998). Genetically engineered trees in the environment: the sterility
issue. Paper given at “Vision 2020” workshop on forest biotechnology,
Oxford, UK.
Strauss, S.H. (2000a) Response to proposed policy statement by the Forest
Stewardship Council on certification of plantations with genetically modified
trees, August 9th, 2000. www.fsl.orst.edu/tgerc/FSC-response-1099.doc
Strauss, S.H., Raffa, K.F. & List, P.C. (2000b) Ethics and genetically engineered
plantations. Journal of Forestry 98: 47-48.
Strauss, S.H., Meilan, R., DiFazio, S.P., Brunner, A.M., Skinner, J.S., Mohamed, R.
& Carson, J.J. (2000c) Tree genetic engineering research co-operative annual
report: 1999-2000. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University.
43pp.
Strobel, G., Xianshu, Y., Sears, J., Kramer, R., Sidhu R.S. & Hess, W.M. (1994)
Taxol from Pestalotiopsis microspora, an endophytic fungus of Taxus
wallichiana. Microbiology 42: 435-440.
Swadener, E. (1994) Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.). Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, No.
3, Fall. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR.
Tabashnik, B.E., Cushing, N., Finson, N., & Johnson, M.W. (1990). Field
development of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in diamondback moth
(Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 83:1671-1676.
Tabashnik, B.E. (1994). Evolution of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Annual
Review of Entomology 39: 47-79.
Talekar, N.S., & Shelton, A.M. (1993) Biology, ecology and management of the
diamondback moth. Annual Review of Entomology 38: 275-315.
Tang, J.D., Gilboa, S., Roush, R.T. & Shelton, A.M. (1997) Inheritance, stability, and
fitness of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in a field colony of Plutella
xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) from Florida. Journal of Economic
Entomology 90: 732-741.
Tickell, O., & Clover, C. (2000) Trees that never flower herald a silent spring. The
Daily Telegraph (London) July 17, 2000.
Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the changing world. Changing attitudes in England
1500-1800. Chapters 5&6. Allan Lane, London.
Thornber, K. (1999) Overview of global trends in FSC certificates; instruments for
sustainable private sector forestry. International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED), May 1999.
40
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
Tzfira, T., Zucker, A., & Altman, A. (1998) Forest tree biotechnology: genetic
transformation and its application to future trees. Trends in biotechnology
16: 439-446.
Ullsten, O. et al. (1990) Tropical forestry action plan: report of the independent
review. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, May, 1990.
Upton, C. & Bass, S. (1995) The Forest Certification Handbook. Earthscan
Publications Ltd., London.
UKGovernment (1996) A guide to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained
Use) Regulations 1992, as amended in 1996. HSE Books, ISBN 0717611868.
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg86.htm
UKWAS (2000a) Species diversity in poplar plantations. UKWAS Interpretation
Note 1, 28th February 2000, UK Woodland Assurance Scheme.
UKWAS (2000b) “Guidance on Pest & Weed control and the correction of nutrient
deficiencies in forestry”. Unpublished Draft of Decision Support System, UK
Woodland Assurance Scheme, 2000.
USDA (1999a) Economic Research Service/USDA, 1st March 1999 – ref. no. 1675
Also www.biotechknowledge.com/index_uk.php3
USDA (1999a) Press release "President Clinton expands federal effort to combat
invasive species", United States Department of Agriculture, February 3rd
1999.
van der Hoeven, C., Dietz, A. & Landsmann, J. (1992). Variability of organ-specific
expression in transgenic tobacco plants. Pp. 243-247. In: Proceedings of the
second international symposium on biosafety results of field tests of
genetically modified plants and organisms. Casper, R. & Landsmann, J. (eds.).
Goslar, Braunschweig.
van Raamsdonk, L.W.D. & Schouten, H.J. (1997) Gene flow and establishment of
transgenes in natural plant populations. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 46: 69-84.
Viliotis, C (2000) Personal communication on behalf of the Steering Committee of the
PEFC Portugal.
von Maltilz, G. (2000) Draft: The impacts of the ISO 14000 management system on
Sustainable Forest Management in South Africa. Division of Environmental,
Water and Forest Technology, CSIR, Pretoria, SA.
Walter, C., Broer, I., Hillemann, D. & Puhler, A. (1992) High frequency heat
treatment-induced inactivation of the phosphinothricin resistance gene in
transgenic single cell-suspension cultures of Medicago sativa. Molecular and
General Genetics. 235: 189-196.
Wang, R-L., Stec, A., Hey, J., Lukens, L. & Doebley, J. (1999) The limits of selection
during maize domestication. Nature 398: 236-239.
Weigel, D. & Nilsson, O. (1995). A developmental switch sufficient for flower
initiation in diverse plants. Nature 377: 495-500.
Weiss, R. (2000) “Biotech Research Branches Out”, Washington Post, Thursday,
August 3, 2000; Page A01.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19048-2000Aug1.html
Also International Herald Tribune, Friday, August 4, 2000; Page 01.
Whetton, R., MacKay, J.J. & Sederoff, R.R. (1998) Recent advances in understanding
lignin biosynthesis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular
Biology 49: 585-609.
41
Coventry, P. (2001)
OFI Oc casional Papers No. 53
Wilcox, P.L., Amerson, H.V., Kuhlman, E.G., Lui, B-H., O’Mally, D.M. & Sederoff,
R.R. (1996) Detection of a major gene for resistance to fusiform rust
resistance in loblolly pine by genomic mapping. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science of the United States of America 93: 3859-3864.
Williams, P.A. & Timmins, S.M. (1990) Weeds in New Zealand Protected Natural
Areas: a review for the Department of Conservation. Science and Research
Series, Report No. 14, Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Williamson, M (1994) Community response to transgenic plants release: predictions
from British experience of invasive and feral crop plants. Molecular Ecology
3: 75-79.
Wingspread Consensus Statement on the Precautionary Principle. Protecting Public
Health and the Environment. In: Raffensperger, C. & Tickner, J. (eds.) Island
Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 353–355.
Wright, J.W. (1976) Introduction to forest genetics. Academic Press, London.
Zobel, B. (1993) Clonal forestry in the Eucalypts. In: Ahuja, M.R. & Libby, W.J.
(eds.) Clonal Forestry II, Conservation and Application, Springer-Verlag
Berlin, pp. 139-148.
42